Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2021, Publication: 109th ILC session (2021)

Written information provided by the Government

The Government of Colombia is compliant with international Conventions, both in legislation and in practice our commitment is firm in respecting the right to unionize. A proof of this is the creation of new unions from 2018 to 2020, where 611 new union organizations were created.

The impunity gap was broken: Our Government strongly rejects any act of violence whatever its origin and we reiterate the State’s willingness to advance in the investigations to clarify the facts and convict those responsible, while protecting our workers, in particular activists and trade union leaders. Colombia has made significant progress in the fight against impunity; today the country has more than 960 convictions, and the number of acts of violence against trade unionists has been reduced. We wish to reiterate that we reject all acts of violence against trade union leaders and that we will continue to fight until the number is zero.

State strategies

The National Immediate Reaction System for the Advancement of Stabilization (SIRIE) was created and activated through the General Command of the Military Forces, which establishes a series of coordinated actions to concentrate capacities to control territories in order to respond to any situation that threatens or affects the exercise of human rights defenders, social leaders, trade unionists and union leaders.

Investigation and prosecution strategy for crimes committed against trade unionists

In order to provide guarantees for access to justice for unionized persons who are victims of crimes and with the objective of contributing to the materialization of the principle of freedom of association, the Attorney General’s Office prioritized investigations of crimes that may affect union activity. The above, through the following actions, which will be strengthened based on the provisions of the strategic direction 2020–24, “Results in the street and in the territories”:

• analysis of the crimes of greatest impact against trade unionists in the development of their work: homicides, violation of the rights of assembly and association and threats;
• definition of the universe of prioritized cases and situations;
• interinstitutional articulation with the Ministry of Labour;
• training to strengthen the investigation of prioritized crimes;
• strengthening the investigation of the crime of threats against human rights defenders;
• the issuance of precise guidelines for the investigation of the crime of homicide against human rights defenders; and
• a work plan that allows the internal articulation of the various units of the Attorney General’s Office with competence in the investigation of these crimes.

Results

(1) The impunity gap was broken, it went from 1 conviction in 2001 to more than 960 convictions in 2021; 70 convictions were handed down in 2020 alone.

(2) From 205 homicides of trade unionists in 2001, there was a reduction of more than 94 per cent to 14 homicides in 2020, with one being a high figure.

(3) Those who hinder the right of association and whoever offers better guarantees in collective agreements are penalized.

(4) The Ministry of Labour together with the ILO is conducting a study that systematizes and analyses 814 judicial decisions taken in the context of crimes committed against unionized workers and trade union organizations in the period 2002–20. This study that takes stock of progress in judicialization against anti-union violence, as a follow-up mechanism to the anti-impunity strategy agreed tripartity in 2006. This study presents the overall results of the analysis of the 814 judicial decisions, identifying their main achievements and fallacies, and making recommendations for successful judicialization.

(5) We have negotiations in the public sector, Colombia being one of the few countries in the region that carries it out successfully with all the Unions’ Centrals of the country.

(6) Trade unionists are protected. The National Protection Unit has actively participated in the National Bureau of Human Rights with the Ministry of Labour and the Unions’ Centrals, in the National Committee to follow up transfers to educators for security reasons with the Ministry of National Education and FECODE, on the other hand, participation in the Committee of Follow-up of Teachers threatened with the Secretary of Education of Bogotá. These spaces for dialogue are used to analyse different risk situations that may affect the fundamental rights of members of the target population, union leaders and/or activists and their representatives. There are currently 292 protected trade unionists.

(7) The Budget for Trade Unionists is guaranteed by the Government which annually makes a significant increase to safeguard the protection of union leaders, from 2018 to 2020, nearly 37 million Colombian pesos has been invested in the protection of union leaders.

(8) The Protection Unit Serves, in accordance with the Decree that regulates it, applications for protection, in case of extreme risk there is an emergency route to provide protection expeditiously.

It is important to note that although the National Protection Unit protects social leaders and union leaders, the strategies and outcomes referred to the Commission only account for measures for union leaders, to whom Convention No. 87 applies exclusively.

Collective repair measures in favour of the trade union movement

The Government in the framework of the National Table of Guarantees held on 14 December 2020, during its fourth session of the permanent table, presented the commitments by the Government related to the hiring of the technical liaisons of the Union Movement to support the systematization of the information for the presentation of the statement, which included the timely sending of the proposal of contractual specifications agreed with the Union Movement, and its subsequent hiring by the national Government from the month of May 2020. Currently, we are waiting for the declaration of the trade union movement in order to continue the development of the collective reparation route that will allow the formulation and implementation of its Integral Plan for Collective Reparation (PIRC), which will establish the actions and measures that will contribute to the reparation of the damages and historical affectations of the trade union movement.

Article 200 of the Penal Code

The Attorney General’s Office, between 2017 and 2020, received a total of 865 complaints for the crime of violation of the rights of reunion and association. Some, 714 cases have been completed and 151 are active, which means 17.45 per cent of the cases.

In the crime under analysis, the following actions were carried out for the termination of the criminal action of the proceedings that entered to the prosecution, from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2020: 

• In 59 cases, an agreement was reached with conciliation. For these cases, the parties, in front of the Prosecutor, agreed to terminate the criminal proceedings under the fulfilment of conditions in the same manner agreed.
• Some 95 processes were terminated by withdrawal of the worker or the reporting trade union organization. This is important, as these are cases that had a negotiated exit between the worker and the company.
• In 68 of the cases the process was conexed, that is the Prosecutor made the decision to continue the investigation under other criminal news that shared the same facts, to analyse the situation together.
• 407 cases (57 per cent) were archived. In 57.25 per cent of these cases, it was established that criminal conduct did not exist. In 29.98 per cent of cases, the file was filed as an illegitimate complainant.
• Other causes: 85 cases culminated in the investigation by termination of criminal proceedings, by preclusion, termination of the complaint, among others.

For events that have occurred between 2017 and 2020, 151 active cases, 106 cases in the pre-process stage, likely to reach conciliation, 42 in search and 3 cases at trial were identified. Some 57 prosecutors offices are advancing in the active processes of these; 3 prosecutors have been assigned to the areas with the highest number of prosecutions. 

The above actions are discussed within the framework of the Inter-Agency Commission on Human Rights, where tripartite actors have the opportunity to interact directly with judicial authorities and express their concerns to them, as well as make recommendations for greater effectiveness of measures taken in terms of protection and investigation. This Committee introduced the Law establishing the abbreviated verbal procedure and incorporating the figure of the private accuser, whereby the victim can act as an accuser, that is, in the role of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Articles 2 and 10 of the Convention: Union contracts

Concerning the measures taken by the Government to control the misuse of the trade union contract, the Ministry of Labour has designed and is implementing the Trade Union File Information System – SIAS, which aims to record, store and manage information to generate indicators and reports necessary for the development of trade union policies and projects; in which it is in pre-production and quality review version. This system of trade union file information of the Ministry of Labour will monitor the registration of the deposits of the trade union contracts, carry out a characterization of the contracts in force in the period covered by each annuity, disaggregated by economic activity and planning inspection actions focused on the monitoring of them.

Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programme of action: Legislative questions

As the ILO has been informed, within the framework of the Subcommittee on International Affairs, we hope to jointly build a road map to enable us to move forward on concerted solutions to effectively comply with the provisions of the Conventions ratified by Colombia and the comments of the experts.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Labour and the Supreme Court of Justice signed a Memorandum of Understanding, in April 2021, on labour rights, whose object is the creation of effective mechanisms for the promotion, compilation and dissemination of the jurisprudence rules of La Sala on individual and collective labour rights, to contribute to the enjoyment and guarantee of the fundamental rights of the Colombian population.

As can be shown, the State’s commitment is total. While the fight against trade union violence remains a major challenge, the above data demonstrate Colombia’s strong commitment to this issue, making significant progress in the protection of trade union leaders and closing the impunity gap in recent years.

Discussion by the Committee

Government representative, Minister of Labour – Our Government wishes to reiterate before the Committee, to which it conveys special greetings, that it respects compliance with the Conventions that Colombia has ratified, in both law and practice, and as always recognizes, values and acts in accordance with the guiding principles of the ILO.

In particular, the Convention forms part of the Constitutional bloc, which means that its provisions stand as a parameter for assessing the constitutionality of legal standards and a supplementary parameter of article 39 of our National Constitution.

The Government of Colombia, based on ILO principles and giving priority to consultation, social dialogue, collective bargaining, freedom of association, the defence of the human rights of workers and the right to organize and enterpreneurial freedom, has worked with all the state bodies to ensure strict compliance with the Convention.

On the first point, drawing the Committee’s attention to the trade union rights and civil liberties that provide the reference framework, and particularly the progress made in investigations, we wish to thank the Committee of Experts for its recognition of the significant action taken by the public authorities. We agree with the comment by the Committee of Experts that the challenges are significant and that, despite the efforts of the State of Colombia, our country is still facing a situation of generalized violence, based principally on illegal drug trafficking and groups outside the law, and that this violence also affects many workers.

As the Committee is well aware, the investigations are carried out by a body that is totally independent of the national Government. In order to show the State’s commitment, we are accompanied today by the Deputy Prosecutor-General of the Nation, Ms Martha Mancera, to whom I give special thanks for coming with me to this meeting. And therefore, with this commitment by Colombia to the ILO, I will now give the floor to the Deputy Prosecutor-General, who will reply to the observations made by the Committee of Experts on the progress made in the investigations into the right to life and the investigations under section 200 of the Penal Code, a crime which is an obstacle to the right to organize.

Another Government representative – The Office of the Prosecutor-General is aware of the importance attached by the State of Colombia to trade union activities, and it is therefore its responsibility to take penal action in accordance with the parameters established by the Constitution, the law and international standards, and particularly due diligence in investigation.

Today I am happy to be able to say that our strategy of giving priority to investigating crimes against trade unionists is successful, is on the right track and has also been strengthened in accordance with the guidance set out in the Strategic Directions of the Office of the Prosecutor-General 2020–24, Results in the street and in the territories, which has been led by the Prosecutor-General of the Nation, Francisco Barboza.

With reference to the violation of the rights of assembly and association between 2011 and 7 June 2021, the Office of the Prosecutor-General of the Nation received 2,841 denunciations. By June 2021, we had succeeded in completing 91.92 per cent of criminal proceedings, that is 2,593 cases, with the result that only 8.72 per cent of cases, or 248 cases, are currently under investigation.

Among the most relevent factors, it should be noted that for the first time in the history of the investigation of this type of crime, based on acts committed between 2011 and 2021, four convictions have been obtained. There has been reconciliation in a total of 161 cases since 2011, in which the parties have agreed to end the criminal proceedings subject to agreed terms. Some 449 proceedings were ended following the withdrawal of the worker or the union. It should also be noted that 1,389 cases have been shelved, accounting for 63.57 per cent of such cases, based on the finding that there was no criminal offence. In accordance with due diligence and the right of access to justice, the parties could also very well request the supervising judge to reopen the investigation, which was not done by any of the parties. Finally, in the case of alleged crimes committed between 2011 and 2021, a total of 248 cases remain open. With a view to strengthening these investigations, 49 prosecutors were trained in this type of crime last May, which is important as training allows us to have better tools to take decisions more rapidly in accordance with due diligence.

With regard to murders of trade unionists between January 2011 and June 2021, the Office of the Prosecutor-General reported 262 victims. The ordinary judicial authorities are investigating 259 cases, and 3 are being handled by special indigenous courts.

The use of investigation strategies by the judiciary has led to progress in the clarification of 43.2 per cent of cases. This indicator is higher than the statistics for intentional homicide, which closed in 2020 with 29.70 per cent of cases being resolved. There is clearly a long way to go, but the progress is tangible, as reflected in the figures, and the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation is committed to making progress in identifying those who kill trade unionists.

With regard to the progress made in the investigation of homicides of trade unionists that occurred between 2011 and June 2021, there are 47 cases in which sentences are being executed, 62 convictions, 41 cases are being prosecuted, 5 cases in which charges are being brought, 11 that are under investigation with arrest warrants issued and 4 cases have been closed due to the death of the person charged.

The Office of the Prosecutor-General of the Nation has registered 562 convictions for the homicide of trade unionists handed down by the courts of the Republic during the period 2011–21. Of these, 62 convictions were for the period 2011–21 and 500 for crimes committed prior to 2011. And taking into account the historical record, it can be said that the courts of the Republic have handed down 884 convictions in Colombian territory.

Threats against trade unionists are another of the most important concerns of the Office of the Prosecutor-General of the Nation and, of course, of the State of Colombia. In April 2021, the Prosecutor-General adopted a decision to strengthen the National Working Group for the Investigation of Threats. In relation to trade union members, priority was given to three situations by the Office of the Prosecutor-General. The first was threats against the leaders of the Colombian Federation of Education Workers (FECODE), the second concerned threats against trade unionists in the department of Valle del Cauca, and the third consisted of threats against trade unionists in the mining and energy sector. A very important consideration in this regard is that the threats are investigated in context, which means that threats are not investigated one by one, but the situations experienced in the various territories of Colombia are taken into account.

Members of the Committee, the Office of the Prosecutor-General of the Nation of Colombia is committed to investigating crimes against trade unionists seriously, independently and with all the means at our disposal to discover the true facts with the participation of the victims. We will pursue this commitment and we guarantee its sustainability in the Office’s policies, and we will continue to seek effective and efficient outcomes in the territory of Colombia.

Government representative, Minister of Labour – Thank you Deputy Prosecutor-General for reporting to the Committee the efforts that the State of Colombia has been making. Allow me to continue reporting progress on other matters raised by the Committee of Experts, although not before noting that the history of the country has changed, also as a result of the efforts of trade unions.

Even a single attack against a single trade union leader is extremely serious and we reject such acts emphatically. I have to point out that the number of murders of Colombian trade unionists has fallen by 93 per cent in relation to 2001.

I want to remind the members of the Committee that the last time that Colombia was called before this Committee was in 2009, when there were a total of 266 convictions, with that figure now reaching 960 cases in which acts of violence against trade unions have been investigated and punished.

Colombia has punished violations of freedom of association. The National Unit was strengthened for 2018 and 2020 and the budget allocated exclusively for the protection of trade union leaders was nearly US$35 million. For 2021, the general budget for protection under the programme is over US$82 million. During the course of 2021, protection has been provided to 293 trade union leaders.

And allow me to tell the Committee the following. As a result of the protection provided by the programme since 2018 up to the present, no trade unionist covered by the programme has been attacked or murdered, as the protection has been effective.

According to the information provided by the programme, no trade unionists who were victims of the crime of murder had requested protection measures and threats were not known.

The National Protection Unit includes within its responsibilities the provision of two types of protection measures, which include soft measures such as communication and protective vests, and hard measures, such as escorts, vehicles, grants and the supply of fuel.

The maximum cost of protection measures for a trade union leader is approximately US$13,000 a month.

In accordance with the right to organize freely, set out in Articles 2 and 11 of the Convention, we wish to recall that the right to organize is exercised freely in our country. There are no obstacles to organizing trade unions, as shown by the fact that, between 2018 and 2020, a total of 611 new trade union organizations were established. In Colombia, trade union organizations are established without any type of interference. We also have negotiations in the public sector, which I hope will now become much stronger, as Colombia is one of the few countries in the region that carries out bargaining successfully with all the trade union confederations.

With reference to the second point relating to the systemization of penalties for crimes against trade unionists, and transparency of information, I would like to say that Colombia wants to align all of this, so that people know with transparency the action taken in the country.

It is important to note that the Ministry of Labour, with the ILO, is undertaking a study to analyse and systematize all the penalties related to the protection of the rights of trade unionists. The study will undoubtedly seek to provide elements that contribute to the review, balance and strengthening of the policy of prosecuting acts of violence against trade unionists and taking action against impunity, by identifying the principal achievements and failings, and making recommendations for their successful prosecution. I wish to thank the ILO for this study, which will support us in our decision-making.

The study examines the outcomes in relation to 814 court rulings handed down by the judicial system in Colombia in relation to crimes and offences committed against trade unions and their members during the period 2002–20. This analysis is being undertaken as a means of following up the strategy to combat impunity, which was the subject of tripartite agreement in 2006, within the framework of the Convention and of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

Our Government is totally committed to the adoption and implementation of public policies that have a positive impact on guaranteeing human rights, our desire for peace through the implementation of the Peace Agreements, and the Act on victims and land restitution, in accordance with everything related to the Peace Agreements. We have been working on this with great resolution and commitment.

I wish to say to the whole world that it is important to remember that we signed a Peace Agreement, as a result of which the Single Register of Victims was created, which recognizes 9 million people who have been affected individually in one way or another.

The Government, within the framework of the National Guarantee Forum, held the fourth session of the standing forum on 14 December 2020. During the session, a report was provided to technicians from the trade union movement on the Government’s commitments. It is important to note that the Victims Unit has not yet received the report on acts of intimidation from the trade union movement through no fault of our own, so that it can be assessed. We are currently making efforts so that this is done during the month of May. We want to tell the trade union movement to take action and that the doors are open, but it has not been our fault.

With reference to trade union contracts, it should be noted that this concept exists in Colombian legislation. We have addressed and discussed this and carried out all the investigations that are necessary, and we have proposed to the Congress of the Republic their elimination in the health sector.

Employer members – We thank the Minister of Labour of Colombia for the information provided orally, as well as the Deputy Prosecutor-General, and for all the written information that is available to the Committee. We place emphasis on the commitment of the Government at the highest level to give effect in law and practice to the Conventions ratified by Colombia.

The Government has worked and is currently working with all state bodies to give effect to the Convention and over the years has given priority and continues to prioritize consultation, social dialogue, free and voluntary collective bargaining, freedom of association, the defence of the human rights of workers and employers and freedom of enterprise as state policies.

In the view of the Employer members, the information received shows a case of progress.

Despite the efforts made by the State, the country is still facing a situation of generalized violence based principally on illegal drug trafficking and the activities of armed groups outside the law. This violence also affects unionized workers. Within this framework, a distinction must be made between the human rights violations suffered by the population in general and the forms of violence that are directly related to the exercise of trade union rights by workers. In a context such as the one described in Colombia, not every act of violence of which trade union leaders are the victims bears a close and sufficient relation to their role in the trade union movement. Nor is every act of violence of which social leaders are victims (including youth, ethnic, environmental and political leaders) directly related to freedom of association and the right to organize. This does not imply that acts of violence are less repugnant, but it does show the importance of understanding the complex situation experienced by the country and of differentiating between the areas of competence of national and international judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.

Few ILO Member States have collaborated so closely and positively with the supervisory bodies and with the Office to give effect to ratified Conventions.

The last time that the Committee discussed this case was in 2009, over ten years ago. The discussion today must therefore be limited to the comments of the Committee of Experts that are within the scope of the provisions of the Convention and the information provided by the Government.

I would like to begin by emphasizing that the Convention does not contain any provision on the right to strike. Moreover, the preparatory work that preceded the adoption of the Convention makes it clear that the Convention does not regulate the right to strike. This is also the opinion of the Government group of the Governing Body and we are pleased to hear the Government of Colombia recalling this important issue.

Accordingly, the request by the Committee of Experts to the Government to amend the legislation in relation to strikes and essential services has no basis in the Convention. The Government is not therefore required to take this request into consideration. The Employers’ group will not address this subject in the discussion and the Committee’s conclusions should not cover this point.

In the few minutes available to us, I would like to address the following issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

First, with regard to trade union rights and public freedoms, Colombia has resolutely implemented various initiatives to make progress in the protection of trade union leaders, and these efforts have also been recognized by other supervisory bodies. As indicated by the Committee of Experts, there has been significant progress in the investigation and punishment of crimes against trade union leaders and members. Between 2001 and 2020, there were a total of 966 convictions relating to acts of anti-union violence, of which 815 concerned homicides of members of the trade union movement.

The figures for murders in Colombia show enormous progress in the reduction of violence. While in 2002 there were 16,382 murders, in 2020 there were 455, or a reduction of 97.2 per cent. The State and the social partners are continuing to show commitment to combating anti-union violence, the rapid investigation and punishment of those responsible for homicides and to seeking a peaceful working environment.

This Committee must recognize the positive efforts made by the Government and the social partners and call for continued progress and the provision of information on this subject in the next regular report.

Second, under the terms of section 200 of the Penal Code, the Office of the Prosecutor-General of the Nation has given priority to cases denounced under section 200 of Act No. 599. The data provided by the Government on cases of potential violations of section 200 of the Penal Code show that the claims of “complete impunity” made by trade union confederations in relation to the application of this provision are not accurate.

There were 2,727 cases between 2011 and October 2020. Of these, 91.02 per cent have been completed, and only 8.98 per cent are under investigation. It is an error to consider that the criminal justice system must assume a leading role in the management of industrial relations. As a mechanism ultima ratio, the penal system, as in all democratic countries, takes action when there are no other ways of preventing and resolving legal disputes.

There has also been significant progress in processes for the investigation and prosecution of this crime.

The Office of the Prosecutor-General and the criminal justice system act in total independence, thereby ensuring that there is appropriate and adequate justice in carrying out investigations, irrespective of their outcome. In this respect, the Employers’ group invites the Government to continue providing information on the progress made with investigations and their outcome in its next regular report.

Third, with reference to trade union contracts, they are a form of collective bargaining in Colombia, and it is therefore strange that they are referred to in the examination of this Convention rather than, as they should be, in the examination of Convention No. 98.

If the Committee of Experts wishes to go into the origins or reasons for the creation of unions with a view to the conclusion of trade union contracts, which could be contrary to Article 2 of the Convention, in the sense that it should imply an abuse of rights, it should also raise the issue of those unions in Colombia that are established merely to give apparent legal form with a view to extending protection to more workers than those already protected as founder members, leaders or those engaged in the negotiation of collective agreements in the original union. In such a case, we would be confronted by an abuse of the freedom of association proclaimed by the Convention, with the need to develop a conceptual definition and undertake a full analysis of all the related situations.

The Constitutional Court has upheld the autonomy of trade unions to conclude trade union contracts, which seek to promote the right to free and voluntary collective bargaining, while strengthening the right to organize, with a view to generating employment for the members of the union through more dynamic union action.

The concept of trade union contracts does not contravene the provisions of the Convention. It is a legal concept that is defended by trade union confederations, such as the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) of Colombia, so that they can maintain constant dialogue with the employer, increase the number of members and obtain greater benefits for workers. The Committee of Experts must not pursue its examination of this matter.

Fourth, with regard to the allegations concerning the cancellation of trade union registration, in Colombia, a trade union can only be dissolved by means of the judicial procedure set out in the law. It cannot be dissolved by administrative means, which is compatible with Article 4 of the Convention. For a trade union at whatever level to be dissolved, it must be in one of the situations established in section 402 of the Substantive Labour Code.

The mere existence of any of the grounds is not sufficient, and there has to be a court ruling ordering dissolution. Moreover, in Colombia, the judicial authorities enjoy independence and autonomy in their decisions in relation to the other branches of the public authorities. With reference to the time limit of five days to challenge a request for the cancellation of their legal personality, due to an illegal strike, the time limit is reasonable and proportionate, taking into account the fact that such a ruling is the result of previous judicial action in which the trade union concerned has participated. Moreover, States have a discretionary margin to determine their own internal procedures.

The Committee must conclude that the strengthened regulation of freedom of association in Colombia in relation to the cancellation of trade union registration is in conformity with the Convention and in compliance with the objective of protecting trade unions.

Worker members – The discussion on the right to freedom of association in Colombia is long overdue. The last time this case was discussed here was 12 years ago, in 2009, despite its regular presence on the long list.

I would like to clarify that, contrary to what the Employer spokesperson said, the list does not contain any case of progress. In order for a case to be considered as a case of progress on the list, the case must be explicitly identified as such by both spokespersons, and this is clearly not the case here.

On 28 April 2021, Colombian workers, led by an alliance of trade unions and social movement organizations, began to demonstrate peacefully across Colombia. Fundamentally, the protests are a reaction to a series of measures promoted by the Government, including a tax reform bill that would deepen income inequality, as well as regressive labour law and pension reforms. The trade unions have not been consulted on these proposed reforms, and these measures stoked the resentment of workers whose lives had been devastated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and saw no meaningful relief forthcoming from the Government.

The ILO supervisory system has repeatedly found that trade unions, “should be able to have recourse to protests, strikes, in particular when aimed at criticizing a government’s economic and social policies”. That is exactly what is happening in Colombia today.

Despite the peaceful nature of the protests by the trade unions and other civil society organizations, the State has responded with extraordinary levels of violence, as it has most recently in 2019. Hundreds of videos from ordinary people demonstrate a brutal and indiscriminate use of lethal and non-lethal weapons against citizens that violate Colombian and international law.

The NGO Temblores, a credible and widely cited source of information on the protests, reports that, as of 31 May, there have been nearly 3,789 incidents of violence perpetrated by the State, including by the military and the elite anti-riot police force, ESMAD. As a result, 45 people have been killed by the security forces, 1,248 people have been wounded, 1,649 protesters have been detained arbitrarily, and 25 people have been victims of sexual violence. The number of disappeared has not yet been tabulated. This must end now.

The Worker members urge the Government to immediately withdraw the military and to guarantee that the police do not intervene in the course of peaceful demonstrations. The Government must also urgently investigate and prosecute all security force members who have committed human and trade union rights violations. Of course, to end the protests, the Colombian Government must engage in effective and good faith negotiations with Colombian trade unions and civil society whose needs have been, so far, ignored.

These facts alone justify the examination of this case, but they are just the most recent events in a decades-long attack on trade unions in Colombia. Once again, the Committee of Experts has expressed its deep concern regarding the persistence of anti-union violence. The persistence of the violence is evidence of the failure of the Government to implement the peace accords. Anti-union violence is increasing, and is especially intense in the rural sector.

I will not read aloud the horrific statistics, as many of them are already in the Committee of Experts’ report. I will only underscore that, since 2016, 119 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia for carrying out their lawful activities as of May 2020, and nearly 700 have received death threats.

To this we must add thousands more deaths since 1986, when statistics were first kept. We need to reflect on how the international community has allowed this to happen, and if this was somehow normal or acceptable. It is shocking that, even today, the Government and some employers still deny that there was, and continues to be systematic persecution against unions. This is one of the reasons why the violence continues. While we do note that the number of investigations and prosecutions into these murders has increased over the last 20 years, the rate of impunity remains high, and the devastation wrought on the individuals, their families and their unions will never be fully repaired.

Of particular concern, we note that despite having been raised repeatedly, the measures to protect trade unionists are still insufficient. Only a fraction of requests for protection submitted in 2019 and 2020 have been examined and, owing to budget costs, protective measures were discontinued to roughly half of the recipients.

The participation of trade unions in the process of the determination of protection measures has also been diminishing.

Violence and the threat of it are not the only danger to the trade union movements. We have noted in recent years that the Government has replaced associated worker cooperatives with the so-called “trade union contracts” to maintain illegal labour intermediation. However, the result is largely the same. Now, an employer enters into a contract with a so-called union, which acts as an employment agency and sends labour to an employer with which it has a contract. These trade union contracts are not managed by independent unions, and indeed they receive financial support from the employer. As such, workers have little say over the terms and conditions of their work and no say over the management of the so-called union. Despite repeated protests from the trade unions the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT) and the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC), the Government has taken no meaningful enforcement action or legislation to prohibit the proliferation of these contracts, which are concentrated heavily in the health sector.

Further, the Government has failed to give any effect to the conclusions of Case No. 3137 of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the issue of trade union contracts. Indeed, the State is also doing very little with regard to violations of the right to freedom of association generally, which carries criminal sanctions under section 200 of the Penal Code. There has still not been a single conviction under this law, despite widespread violations, including violations committed by the State. This includes the case of the major Colombian air carrier, as was recently determined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 3316 in March 2021. The Government has not complied with that decision and the legislation in relation to strikes in essential services has not been revised.

Other measures now being employed to eliminate trade unions include the use of a special procedure in section 380 in the Labour Code for the cancellation of union registrations. It is a brief summary process and all guarantees and safeguards for the union, its leaders and workers are virtually removed. In 2020, there were several alarming cases, including that of SINTRAINAGRO, where a company filed suit to dissolve the union following an alleged illegal stoppage.

We agree with the Committee of Experts, which has reiterated that the cancellation of trade union registration constitutes an extreme form of interference that must be confined to serious violations of the law after exhausting other less drastic means of action for the organization as a whole. It is important for such measures to be accompanied by all the necessary guarantees, which can only be ensured by normal judicial procedures.

There is more to say and you will hear from the Worker representative of Colombia and from other countries before I make my concluding remarks.

Employer member, Colombia – The case of Colombia should not have been included on the list of individual cases and the Committee should have concluded that this is a case in progress, as I will explain.

With respect to anti-union violence, since the last examination in 2009, the ILO has been providing support to the Government and the social partners in the country to strengthen social dialogue and bring the law and practice into conformity with this and other Conventions. The 2016 Peace Agreement was a significant step for Colombian citizens in achieving a climate of social understanding. The firm support for this agreement by the ILO Director-General and the international community commits us, as employers, even more to this understanding with the workers and their organizations. Colombia, which is still in the process of implementing the agreement, continues to be affected by illegal armed groups, whose financing comes essentially from drug trafficking and money laundering, and which use violence to attempt to impose their will on all sectors of society.

Therefore, for the examination by the ILO and based on our rejection of all acts of violence, it is important to differentiate between the types of violence suffered by the general population and the specific forms of violence related to the exercise of freedom of association.

The Colombian State has taken action for the protection of union leaders and activists, which has been recognized positively by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos 2761 and 3074.

The Committee of Experts has also highlighted the significant progress in the investigation and prosecution of crimes against trade unionists and leaders, with investigations and sentences that clarify the facts and convict the perpetrators.

We have seen the Government's effort to allocate enormous resources and provide protection and prevention plans for trade unionists and other threatened groups.

We reiterate our rejection of any acts of violence against employers or trade unionists, or any Colombian, and we support the action of the authorities to ensure protection, and to investigate and convict the perpetrators.

We call on the trade union federations to kindly focus on the development of economic and labour policies, with tripartite agreement, which, beyond ideological differences, will ensure the recovery of enterprises and increase jobs for social well-being. We must, with the support of the ILO, use social dialogue to build consensus around common goals.

With respect to crimes against freedom of assembly and association, the Office of the Prosecutor-General, an independent investigative body, has recently provided precise data on the manner in which it has resolved most of the complaints. Colombia is one of the few countries in the world that has considered that violations of freedom of association must be punished as a crime with prison sentences, which demonstrates the strong commitment to comply with the Convention. The Committee cannot maintain that justice only operates when there are convictions. Withdrawal, conciliation, estoppel, the shelving of investigations and acquittal are also forms of justice.

Regarding trade union contracts, these are a form of collective bargaining and not the establishment of a trade union, and the Committee of Experts should therefore have addressed this issue under Convention No. 98. In Colombia, trade unions enjoy full autonomy to organize and are free to conclude agreements with employers, which include, to a small extent, trade union contracts. In addition, it is only necessary to deposit, not register, the establishment of a trade union with the Ministry of Labour, which automatically grants the trade union legal personality to act, and this can only be challenged through the courts.

As indicated by our spokesperson, if the ILO wishes to go further into the reasons for the establishment of a union, we must also explore the “trade union carousel”, which is a concept that, in our opinion, constitutes a breach of the law because, as well as weakening workers’ unity, it distorts the protective purpose of union rights and of collective bargaining itself. Trade union contracts do not contravene the Convention and are defended by the CGT. Since 2018, the Office has had a comprehensive document provided by the CGT explaining the content, use and scope of trade union contracts.

Regarding the cancellation of trade union registration, in Colombia the process of the cancellation of trade union registration requires a judicial decision ordering dissolution in order to provide constitutional protection to the right to organize, as the judicial authorities in Colombia enjoy independence and autonomy in their decisions. Colombian legislation is thereby in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention and with the Committee on Freedom of Association, which has indicated that “cancellation of a trade union’s registration should only be possible through judicial channels”.

Lastly, with respect to strikes, the Employers have always maintained that the Convention does not contain or implicitly recognize the right to strike. In the preparatory documents for the Convention, at the Conference in 1948, it is stated that “the proposed Convention relates only to freedom of association and not to the right to strike”. It is not therefore for the Committee of Experts to examine this issue, nor for the Conference Committee to discuss or adopt conclusions on it. I conclude by calling for interventions to be limited specifically to the matters referred to by the Committee of Experts in its report and not to address other issues beyond that.

Worker member, Colombia – The workers of Colombia welcome the fact that, after 12 years, Colombia is once again being called upon for the terrible violations of freedom of association. Not only has the Committee of Experts noted serious violations of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining and to strike, the Committee on Freedom of Association has noted that Colombia is the country with the most cases of murders, discrimination and legal provisions that impede freedom of association.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has already condemned and is considering proceedings against forced disappearances, murders of trade unionists and acts involving loss of sight during protests.

Trade partners such as Canada, the United States of America, the European Union and bodies such as the Employment Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development (OECD) have reported anti-union violations, impunity and legislative obstacles restricting the application of the Convention.

For years, Colombia has been ranked among the ten worst countries in the world for workers, and the nine worst for murders. In the last 12 years, the country has suffered 4,888 violations of the life and integrity of trade unionists. Although the Government has said for years that these were crimes related to the armed conflict, the truth is that even after the signing of the Peace Agreement with the guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), violence against social leaders, including trade unionists, is continuing and is increasing. Since 2016, in the five years since the conflict, we have suffered more than 1,120 human rights violations, with 696 threats, 6 forced disappearances, 4 kidnappings and 119 murders.

The comrades who have suffered the most violations have been teachers, prison workers, rural workers and those in the mining and energy sector for defending their rights against transnational companies and trying to establish peace in their territories, as well as in the health sector, where they have been persecuted for denouncing corruption in the management of resources.

The situation was already serious before the social protests that began with this year’s national strike, which the trade union confederations, among others, called in response to the serious social crisis.

But, since 28 April, as more than 800 municipalities have engaged in peaceful protests in the country’s capitals and highways, and an emergency statement was presented a year ago, the most violent reactions against the population in Colombian history have been unleashed, instead of prompting the Government to call for negotiation.

The police, military forces and even armed civilians, using excessive force against protestors, in a warlike approach, have resulted in, as of 31 May, 3,789 cases of violence: 1,248 victims of physical violence, 45 murders, 1,649 arbitrary detentions, 705 violent interventions in peaceful protests, 65 victims of eye injuries, 25 victims of sexual violence and 89 or 346 disappeared persons, depending on whether the source is official or non-governmental.

In relation to the Government's intervention, we wish to make a clarification concerning the 611 new unions established. False unions have been established, particularly in the health sector, for labour mediation through trade union contracts, which have been used since 2011, replacing false cooperatives, which were banned due to such practices. The 960 convictions for anti-union crimes account for fewer than 6 per cent of the more than 14,000 acts of anti-union violence over the past 30 years. Of the 865 complaints filed over the five years to date for violations of the right to organize, 82 per cent have been shelved without any investigation, and in ten years, according to what they are now telling us, there have only been four supposed convictions. Today there are only 292 protected trade unionists. Although over 8,570 protection measures have been requested since 2016, fewer than 38 per cent of them have been evaluated and only 3.45 per cent have been granted. Of the trade unionists who have reported that their lives are endangered, 96 per cent remain unprotected.

The law restricts strikes in non-essential services in the strict sense of the term, allowing for strikers to be dismissed, unions to be dissolved and even for convictions ordering the payment of millions of dollars in alleged damages.

The Government celebrates the decrease from 205 murders of trade unionists in 2001 to 14 in 2020, as if this were an acceptable or better figure. This is an insult to the memory of the 1,352 comrades murdered over the past 20 years.

We Colombian workers call for a high-level tripartite mission to visit Colombia; a plan to be established in which the Government complies with the conclusions of this mission, thereby ending anti-union violence, stigmatization and impunity, and guaranteeing response, prevention and individual and collective protection measures; the adoption of legislative reforms to prevent false unions engaged in labour mediation; the commencement of collective compensation for the union movement; and effect given to the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies.

As a matter of urgency, human rights violations against peaceful social protests must cease, and there must be effective negotiation in good faith of the emergency statement presented by the National Strike Committee.

Government member, Portugal – I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States. The Candidate Countries, Montenegro and Albania, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, as well as the Republic of Moldova, align themselves with this statement.

The EU and its Member States are committed to the promotion, protection, respect and fulfilment of human rights, including labour rights and the right to organize and freedom of association. We actively promote universal ratification and implementation of fundamental international labour standards, including this Convention. We support the ILO in its indispensable role to develop, promote and supervise the application of international labour standards and of fundamental Conventions in particular.

The EU and its Member States cooperate closely with Colombia both in the context of the cooperation agreement with the Andean community, as well as at the bilateral level. The Trade Agreement between Colombia and the EU, in force since August 2013, also includes a joint commitment to sustainable development, including respect for labour rights.

In line with the Committee of Experts’ assessment and in view of the magnitude of the remaining challenges in the implementation of the Convention described in its last report, we acknowledge the significant action taken by the public authorities. We note, with contentment, the significant increase in the number of convictions for acts of anti-union violence, thus breaking the cycle of impunity.

However, we regret that, despite these achievements, anti-union violence persists in a context of the growing number of attacks against social leaders, with the agriculture, education, transport, mining and energy sectors being the most affected. We are particularly concerned about the numerous reported murders of trade union leaders, attempted murders, disappearances and death threats against trade unionists, as well as the alleged surveillance of leaders of the trade union movement.

We would welcome more information from the Government on its efforts to improve the effectiveness of the investigations and criminal proceedings undertaken to identify and punish the instigators and perpetrators. We also request the Government to provide detailed information on allegations of surveillance.

We fully support the Committee of Experts’ call urging the Government to continue strengthening its efforts and increase the resources allocated to providing adequate protection for all trade unionists at risk. We also request the Government to assess the effectiveness of section 200 of the Penal Code and its enforcement, in consultation with social partners, and to provide a report of its outcome and any action taken as a result.

We take note of ruling SL 1680–2020 of the Supreme Court and would like to echo the Committee of Experts’ repeated calls to amend provisions of the Substantive Labour Code. We urge the Government to take the necessary measures in the near future to amend the legislative provisions regarding essential services and section 417 of the Code, which curtails federations’ and confederations’ right to strike. The Convention also applies to federations and confederations, and therefore they must have full freedom in determining their programmes and organizing activities.

We also seek additional information on the reasons behind the very short procedural time limits set out in section 380(2) of the Substantive Labour Code, which led to the cancellation of several trade union registrations.

Finally, we would like to express our concerns regarding the violence during the recent social protests in Colombia, deeply regretting the loss of many lives and the thousands of injured. People in Colombia, as anywhere else, have the right to peaceful protests. This right, together with freedom of assembly, association and freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and must be respected and protected, not suppressed by force. Thorough independent investigations of human rights abuses and violations must be undertaken promptly and in a transparent and effective manner. Inclusive social dialogue and negotiations that result in concrete actions are the only viable path to overcome this profound crisis.

The EU and its Member States will continue to monitor the situation and remain committed to our close cooperation and partnership with Colombia.

Government member, Barbados – I am making this statement on behalf of a significant majority of Latin American and Caribbean countries. We welcome the delegates of the Government of Colombia, in particular the Minister of Labour and the Attorney-General, who have provided the Committee with updated information. We thank the Government of Colombia for the presentation of its progress report on the follow-up to the observations of the Committee of Experts on the Convention.

We have taken note of the efforts of the Government of Colombia to advance investigations and fight impunity. We join the Government in rejecting the acts of violence committed against trade union leaders and unionized workers.

We recognize, as does the Committee of Experts in the report of February 2021, the significant actions taken by the public authorities and that today, according to the information transmitted by the Government, more than 960 convictions for crimes against trade unionists have been made. We encourage the Government to continue its efforts to advance investigations and punish the guilty, as well as to continue to protect workers and trade unionists.

We note with satisfaction the work done with the ILO to systematize and analyse the judicial decisions issued as a result of investigations into crimes committed against trade unionists.

We acknowledge the collective bargaining process that is under way in the public sector, and encourage all actors to continue working within the framework of social dialogue to reach an agreement for the benefit of workers. In the same vein, we hope that progress will continue to be made on collective redress measures for the trade union movement.

We welcome the information that highlights the creation of new trade unions in Colombia, and we hope that union organizations will continue to grow.

The work that is being carried out in the Subcommittee on International Affairs to create a road map to advance the observations of the Committee of Experts regarding the Conventions that Colombia has ratified, in a tripartite manner and with the technical assistance of the ILO, is very important. We therefore encourage the continuation of work in this direction.

Finally, we encourage the Government to continue its efforts to implement its commitments under the Convention and hope that the ILO will continue to provide technical support to the Government of Colombia.

Employer member, Guatemala – First, I would like to say that four years after the Peace Agreement was signed, the cycle of violence in Colombia has not entirely stopped, and violent acts continue to be perpetrated by criminal organizations that violate the human rights of the general population.

Consequently, in Colombia, like in other Latin American countries, not every act of violence against a trade union leader is related to their work. Employers reject all acts of violence in general, including those against trade union leaders which, like all cases of violence, must be solved.

Colombia has implemented initiatives to protect trade unionists which have been acknowledged in general by the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos 2761 and 3064. Between 2002 and 2020, murders of trade unionists fell by 97 per cent and there were 966 convictions in relation to anti-union violence.

Second, with regard to section 200 of the Penal Code on the violation of freedom of assembly and association, 91 per cent of the 2,727 cases of suspected violations of that section between 2011 and 2020 have been closed. Although it is recognized that there are complaints, there has also been significant progress in the processes of investigating and prosecuting this crime.

Third, the Employers’ group has always maintained that none of the Articles of the Convention contain implicit recognition of the right to strike. This is confirmed in the preparatory documents for the Convention; as the reports of the Conference at the time state that the proposed Convention relates only to freedom of association and not the right to strike. We therefore believe that the Committee of Experts should not continue to examine this issue.

With regard to strikes and essential public services, Colombia has defined the issue in its legislation, which the country’s higher courts have reviewed and deemed to be in accordance with the provisions of its political Constitution and the relevant ILO Conventions.

Worker member, Nicaragua – In Colombia, the destruction is continuing of democracy and the social State under the rule of law, and an authoritarian Government is being strengthened that is selling a false democracy to impose a dictatorship, in which violence and impunity reign for those who repress and violate citizens’ rights. The constant violation of freedom of association, precarious labour conditions and the denial of rights are some of the pillars that are generating further social inequality, higher levels of poverty and rising unemployment among the working class in Colombia.

The Colombian Government indicates that it is in compliance with the Convention, but that is not the reality. The constant violation of human rights can be seen in the ongoing murders of trade union leaders, the use of repression against demands for a fairer society and the criminalization of protests and social demands.

Rather than settling disputes and reaching agreements with the trade union leadership to resolve labour and social problems, the Government is interfering in the internal affairs of neighbouring countries and is failing to listen to the various national and international bodies that condemn the murders of the young workers and citizens who are protesting for a more equitable society.

The most sacred right of all human beings is the right to life, which today is being systematically violated by the current Government. The right to organize and to collective bargaining is also considered a human right and thus must be respected, as set out in the Convention, which also establishes the right to strike to demand compliance with labour laws and collective agreements.

These are our words of solidarity and certainty that the workers of Colombia love peace and tranquillity, but that today they are forced to call for and demand full freedom of association, respect for life and the restoration of the right to a better life with a more equitable distribution of wealth. May justice be done by convicting those who have stained their hands and conscience with the blood of the Colombian people. Justice and truth must prevail over slander and lies.

Employer member, Mexico – Before referring to the specific case, I would like to make a comment to this Committee on the procedures for the selection of cases that we seemed to have moved beyond. It seems obsessive to focus on issues from the Americas in relation to the Convention. Serious issues are raised in the report of the Committee of Experts that have unfortunately not been included, in contrast with a case such as that of Colombia, which should not be chosen as a case, because it has been duly addressed, with the continuing process of the implementation of the Peace Agreement, and the harmonization of society, which is showing progress even in the climate of violence that is currently being experienced.

This progress is reflected in the constant action to guarantee the exercise of freedom of association, which has been recognized by the ILO supervisory bodies, and particularly by the Committee on Freedom of Association in more than one case, as already mentioned by Alberto Echeverría, the Employer representative of Colombia.

What is being said in this virtual meeting demonstrates the will that exists to continue making improvements and, to that end, it is necessary to strengthen social dialogue, which undeniably depends on the Government’s active participation with the representatives of the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations.

In few countries is freedom of association protected to the extent that the violation of this right is considered a crime. There are always opportunities for improvement, but that cannot be achieved by discussing this case without recognizing the progress made in Colombia. Problems of violence in general are being confused and the attempts that are being made to link them to violations of the Convention are clearly unfounded.

It is necessary to disregard the opinions of the Committee of Experts and the accusations that are not supported by evidence, such as those related to strikes, which are not covered by the Convention; and to encourage the Government to continue making efforts to consolidate action for the pacification of the country.

Worker member, United States of America – The Committee and Labour Congress aligns itself with this statement. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) is deeply concerned with the continued promotion of measures meant to undermine trade unions, and to divest workers of their ability to freely associate and bargain collectively. Previously, this was accomplished by the promotion of “associated labour cooperatives” which were employer-created structures for the express purpose of excluding workers forced to work under them from the protections of the Labour Code. While the false cooperatives are now largely gone, a new structure has taken its place.

The so-called contrato sindical (“union contract”) has been predominant in the health sector, as well as the education and agricultural sectors, compounding the difficulties workers already face. Through the contrato sindical, the legislation allows a so-called union organization to operate as a temporary service company, and additionally provides that the workers are not recipients of labour rights. This structure is a complete distortion of the purposes of the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining. The contrato sindical is still allowed under the Colombian Labour Code and in Decree No. 36 of 2016.

Despite the obvious abuse, to date there has been no effort to sanction their use when used for illegal labour intermediation through labour inspection, and no effort to advance a reform that would eliminate them from Colombian law. The Government must move legislation that effectively prevents illegal labour intermediation, including by eliminating the use of the contrato sindical.

Chairperson – I would like to inform you that the Government of Colombia has raised a point of order on the failure to abide by parliamentary language, as is customary in our Committee. I would like to invite all Committee members to use parliamentary language.

Government member, Canada – Canada thanks the Government of Colombia for the information presented to the Committee. Since 2018, Canada and Colombia have worked to resolve the long-standing problems affecting workers in Colombia which relate in particular to freedom of association and the right of association.

Canada welcomes the efforts made by Colombia in recent years, particularly the work undertaken by the Elite Group of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, to bring an end to impunity in cases of murders and threats against trade unionists, as well as the coordination carried out with the Ministry of Labour. These specific measures have prevented crimes against trade unionists and protected freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, although there remains much work to be done. For that reason, Canada requests that the Government of Colombia intensify its efforts.

Firstly, it should mobilize the social partners to assess the effectiveness of section 200 of the Penal Code and its application.

Secondly, it should remove the legal instruments used to weaken workers’ fundamental rights to form associations and bargain collectively, such as collective agreements, which undermine trade unions’ independence and core functions.

Thirdly, it should assess periodically the effectiveness of the strategies proposed by the Office of the Public Prosecutor with regard to investigations into murders and threats against trade unionists.

Canada remains committed to working with Colombia as a partner and to supporting its efforts to resolve these issues of concern.

Employer member, Argentina – I will limit my comments to only certain of the aspects that have been examined by the Committee of Experts.

First, as highlighted by the Employer spokesperson, Mr Mailhos, the Convention does not contain any provisions on the right to strike. Furthermore, the preparatory work that preceded the adoption of the Convention makes it clear that the Convention does not regulate the right to strike. This is also the opinion of the Government group of the Governing Body, and we have been pleased to hear the Government of Colombia recall this important point.

Consequently, the request by the Committee of Experts for the Government to amend the law respecting strikes and essential services has no basis in the Convention. The Government is not obliged to consider this request, and the Committee’s conclusions should not address this issue.

With regard to trade unions, they are not legal persons that are above the law governing all other organizations in any country, and if legal requirements exist for their establishment, they should also exist in relation to their dissolution. And, in that sense, the intervention of the courts is essential and undeniable if this is to be the case. They cannot be outside or above the law, as they have rights and obligations in the same way as any other entity.

Government member, Honduras – We welcome the information provided by the representatives of the Colombian authorities, through the Minister of Labour, on progress in compliance with the Convention.

We appreciate the efforts of the Government of Colombia to respond to the observations of the Committee of Experts, and particularly the progress made in combating impunity and protecting trade union leaders. These efforts have been recognized by the Committee of Experts.

We highlight the information from the Colombian Government on the reduction in the number of murders and the significant increase in convictions, which to date total 960. We believe that the examination and systematization of convictions, undertaken jointly with the ILO, is very important and we encourage the Office to continue this type of activity and joint work.

We welcome the progress in implementing the Peace Agreement, particularly the approval of the respective projects, the restitution of lands along rural roads, and the policies for persons formerly linked to armed groups who can be reintegrated into society. We highlight the establishment of the National Reintegration Register (RNR). We also draw attention to the measures adopted to ensure the collective compensation of the trade union movement.

We encourage the Government to continue working with the tripartite partners on the road map in order to make progress on the legislative matters that have yet to be addressed.

Worker member, Uruguay – The Workers are in complete disagreement with the idea that this is an ongoing case or a case of progress, not only because of the number of years that we have been denouncing what is happening in Colombia in terms of workers’ deaths and murders, but also because of the figures that have been manipulated. In any case, in all likelihood what is ongoing or in progress is another death of a trade union leader or further repression of young people who want to demonstrate, but who instead lose eyes or end up maimed as a result of repression by state terrorism in Colombia, something that continues from one Government to another.

There are no human rights violations, there are no deaths or murders that are not related to the social struggle led by these young people and trade union leaders. Or in any case, if there are any cases that are not related, they are the exception. As a general rule, they suffer human rights violations while fighting for a better, more democratic, egalitarian and inclusive society. That is the struggle that Colombians have been pursuing for a very long time, despite the way they have been treated, namely through repression by state terrorism and by paramilitary groups with financing from who knows who.

Incidentally, speaking of funding, I want to be clear, once again, that for workers the right to strike is a fundamental pillar of freedom of association and, in contrast, trade union contracts are part of the trade union mafia. We have nothing to do with them, nor do they represent us, and there is a reason why employers defend trade union contracts. Indeed, trade union contracts have nothing to do with the true trade union struggle, they are part of a mafia that we reject. Of everything that has been said by Governments and some employers, the only thing with which we agree is that much remains to be done. Therefore, we want the ILO to come down as hard as necessary on this hypocrisy and on this process that has been under way in Colombia for very many years.

Government member, United States of America – The United States Government and the Government of Colombia continue to cooperate closely to ensure the rights of workers. Since 2017, cooperation has intensified under consultations between points of contact under the US–Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement labour chapter.

We are encouraged by some of the Government’s meaningful efforts to better protect the right to freedom of association in Colombia, including increasing the number of labour inspectors in the career civil service and strengthening the legal framework for criminalizing threats against human rights defenders, such as trade unionists, by adding article 188(e) to the Penal Code in 2018.

However, significant challenges remain. The Committee of Experts noted with deep concern allegations of the persistence of anti-union violence, as well as slow progress to hold perpetrators accountable. Similarly, there are freedom of association challenges that the Ministry of Labour must address. Existing measures and mechanisms remain insufficient to prevent and investigate the violations of rights under this Convention. For example, between 2018 and 2020, there was only one instance of charges filed for the threatening of a trade unionist, and no convictions in cases under article 188(e) or 347.

We call on the Government to take immediate action to ensure freedom of association in both law and practice. To that end, this requires:

• further addressing homicides of trade unionists and ensuring a climate free from intimidation and violence by increasing efforts and resources to investigate, prosecute, and hold perpetrators accountable, including those responsible for ordering these acts;
• assessing and strengthening the effectiveness of section 200 of the Penal Code and its enforcement;
• ensuring a sufficient budget to adequately inspect for and sanction violations related to the right to freedom of association; and
• conducting directed inspections in priority sectors and ensuring fines are collected.

We value the collaborative relationship and credit the Government of Colombia for the progress to date. However, critical and urgent work remains to be done to address these long-standing issues. We remain committed to engaging with the Government in making necessary strides to advance worker rights in Colombia.

Employer member, Honduras – We are grateful for the information provided and we support the comments made by the National Employers Association of Colombia (ANDI) emphasizing that employers’ organizations, and in this specific case the ANDI, has not accepted and will not accept any type of threat, homicide, kidnapping or other form of violence or act of discrimination against the working class.

We endorse the call made by the ANDI to keep making efforts to strengthen social dialogue as a necessary tool for the reinforcement of democracy.

We urge the Government of Colombia to continue strengthening internal mechanisms and the expedited investigation and prosecution of those responsible for crimes against trade union leaders and members. And particularly with a view to maintaining the efforts to seek a peaceful working environment, as noted by the Committee of Experts in its most recent observation in 2020, Honduran employers recognize the efforts made by the Government of Colombia to provide adequate protection to all trade union leaders and members who are at risk.

We request the Committee to consider this as a case of progress.

Worker member, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – On 28 April, a mass protest coordinated by the Colombian trade unions took to the streets in many regions of the country. The protest grew and achieved its planned peak on May Day, a traditional day for trade union protest. Estimates range from many hundreds of thousands, to millions of people on the streets. The protests were targeted at proposed tax reforms, as well as growing inequality and the faithless lack of implementation of the country’s peace process.

We note that, as provided for in the Convention, trade union rights include the right to organize public demonstrations, and that any intervention of the forces of order should be in due proportion to the danger to law and order.

However, human rights organizations monitoring the response to the protests have documented abuses by the authorities up to 31 May, including 3,700 cases of police violence, with at least 45 deaths of protestors, and 1,600 cases of arbitrary detention. There were also 25 victims of sexual violence, and 65 eye injuries. The latter prompted one Government-supporting senator to tell NGOs to, “stop crying over one eye”.

Police have also failed to stop private citizens opening fire on protests, in one case injuring ten indigenous protestors. There are also reports of protesters being taken to clandestine centres of detention, raising the risk of forcible disappearances.

On 28 May, the Government implemented a decree giving the armed forces a greater role in controlling protests. This draws on a section of the country’s Police Code allowing “military assistance” “in the face of imminent risk or danger, or to confront an emergency or public calamity”. We note that this huge protest has been largely peaceful, and that there is no emergency other than that being caused by the Government’s actions.

We note that the Government has attempted to portray legitimate protestors as terrorists and criminals to justify repression and reduce public sympathy. In a country where 65 social leaders have already been murdered in 2021, and where, since the Peace Agreement, 270 former Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) combatants have also been killed, this tactic not only undermines the freedom to protest, but places lives in real danger.

Government member, Switzerland – Colombia has been on the Committee on Freedom of Association’s list since 1952. Over the past 70 years, the Committee on Freedom of Association has closed 167 cases, while 22 cases are still active and 25 cases are being followed up. Most of the complaints relate to allegations of violence against trade unionists and impunity.

Switzerland recognizes that significant efforts have been made by the Government to improve the situation over the years, but there has been a deterioration over recent months. The population of Colombia, as well as trade unions, are confronted on a daily basis by organized crime and other forms of criminality. This has the consequence of slowing down the sustainable development of a well-functioning economy and imperilling human rights and the rule of law.

Switzerland therefore calls on the Government to continue its efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against trade unionists, and particularly the murders, attempted murders, forced disappearances, death threats and homicides referred to in the reports of the Committee of Experts.

Switzerland is continuing to cooperate with Colombia in the various fields of economic development and at the same time expects Colombia to accelerate its draft reform of the Penal Code and the Labour Code, in consultation with the social partners, in order to bring them into full conformity with international labour standards.

Finally, Switzerland supports the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee of Experts and encourages Colombia to continue its efforts to promote social dialogue and ensure that it takes place in the necessary climate of confidence.

Employer member, Norway – Colombia has made significant progress in the process of protecting the right to organize. It is worth highlighting the progress in the prosecution of cases of deaths of trade unionists. Homicide rates directly related to the union function have decreased, considering the actions that have been implemented by the Government. Also, there has been progress in the professionalization of labour inspectors to protect the rights associated with freedom of association.

On trade union contracts and their impact on the application of the Convention, the Constitutional Court has reiterated the autonomy enjoyed by trade union organizations to enter into trade union contracts, which seek to promote the right to collective bargaining, while strengthening the right to trade union association, with the aim of generating jobs for the members of the trade union organization, in order to boost trade union activity.

Thus, the implementation of this bargaining model deepens the different types of agreement that can be reached in the framework of social dialogue to enable coordination and collaboration between employers and workers. To avoid the abuse of the trade union contracts, Colombian legislation has inspection, surveillance and control mechanisms that allow sanctions to be imposed in the event that illegal labour intermediation or the violation of workers’ rights is proven.

The concept of trade union contracts does not go against the provisions of the Convention. In fact, this is a legal figure defended by trade union organizations because it allows them to maintain a constant dialogue with the employer; to have a greater number of members; and to generate greater benefits for the workers.

Worker member, Spain – On behalf of the workers of Italy, Switzerland, Netherlands, the Nordic unions, Germany and Spain, I am taking the floor in this Committee to place emphasis on the harsh situation of the working class in Colombia due to the continued anti-trade union policy which, even though it reflects that of various countries on the American continent, is at a more constant and violent level.

We observe with concern that the Government of Colombia resists compliance with the requirements of international standards and the ILO supervisory bodies, thereby impeding action to bring an end to discrimination against trade unions, despite the international support that has been provided to Colombia by this Organization.

The low rate of unionization in Colombia is a result of anti-union violence, as well as the precarious forms of contracts and the use of nefarious concepts which, although legal, are in violation of the principles of freedom of association.

On the one hand, we have collective bargaining with non-unionized workers known as “collective accords”. Colombia registered no fewer than 222 collective accords in 2019, despite the Committee of Experts warning that where there is a trade union in the enterprise, collective accords must not be concluded with non-unionized workers. On the other hand, we have the so-called “trade union contracts”, which also distort the nature of trade unions.

Faced with these violations of the Convention, we call for specific measures to be taken to guarantee the exercise of freedom of association, for the Government to make good on its commitment to strengthen trade unions, that it accepts the recommendations of this Organization and of other international human rights bodies and stops its acceptance of anti-trade union policies, which have only further aggravated the situation that is today criticized in Colombia.

We recall that peace only begins where work is born, with the right to defend it.

Government member, Democratic Republic of the Congo – The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has followed with great attention the cases of the violation of the Convention. The cases reported are in strategic sectors for the life of this country, that is in the fields of education, transport, mines, agriculture and energy.

With regard to anti-union violence, the Government of the DRC endorses the sad observation made by the Committee of Experts concerning the various cases of attempted murder, and indeed murders of trade union leaders, and surveillance and tailing by members of the Colombian army. However, the Government of the DRC observes that all of this violence is not a result of the management of trade union movements by the public authorities, but rather the general situation of insecurity.

It should be noted that the Government of Colombia has adopted measures for the collective compensation of the trade union movement and indemnities for trade unionists following the disproportionate response by the public authorities.

With reference to the issue of the time limits established for the most diligent party to appeal under section 380 of the Substantive Labour Code, in view of the divergence of views, the Government of the DRC invites the public authorities to make use of the virtues of social dialogue with all the social partners to find an appropriate solution. The Government of Colombia should also seek ILO technical assistance.

Worker member, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela – The workers of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela observe with great concern the escalation of violence affecting companions in trade unions and other social organizations in the Republic of Colombia which, instead of decreasing, has increased constantly since September 2019, resulting in the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas (TUCA) making complaints against the Government for manifest negligence in the prevention of violence by criminal groups against leaders.

The Government of Colombia has resorted to a militarized response to social protest, in violation of the universal right to freedom to peaceful demonstration. Uniformed police forces, police officers in civilian dress and para-police forces stop demonstrations using violence and firearms and selectively detain citizens, who are then disappeared.

In this warlike situation, the Government has adopted Decree No. 575 imposing military assistance on 8 governors and 13 municipal mayors, under a de facto partial state of internal upheaval, which is a virtual coup d’état in the Republic of Colombia.

In this regard, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has recalled the international obligations of the State of Colombia in relation to internal security and inter-American standards, which provide that the participation of armed forces in security operations must be extraordinary, subordinate, complementary, regulated and inspected, and that States shall respect, protect, facilitate and promote the right to social protest and any legitimate use of force shall abide by the principles of legality, absolute necessity and proportionality.

Venezuelan workers call on the Government of Colombia to respect the right to life, the right to organize in trade unions and the Convention, and from our country we send a big hug of solidarity to our Colombian companions.

Employer member, Brazil – The notable progress made in the country is clear since the last examination by this Committee in 2009, but what is strange is the inclusion of this case on the short list. In its report, the Committee of Experts recognizes and welcomes the Government’s active commitment, the effectiveness of state action through inter-institutional coordination, the measures and budget allocated to the protection of trade unionists, the many criminal convictions when violent crimes are investigated and the constant consultation with the social partners. I welcome the detailed reports provided by the Government, with very good results, in resolving the concerns of the Committee of Experts. Colombia has benefited from constant ILO support and has made a tripartite commitment through initiatives and projects that it has led. Accordingly, when examining the case of Colombia, the Committee is assessing the effectiveness of the ILO itself on the ground.

With regard to the cancellation of trade union registration, I emphasize that the grounds and the judicial procedure are set out in the law, and their application is therefore rational and proportional. The cancellation of registration occurs through due process, by decision of a judicial authority through two instances. It is therefore in conformity with the Convention and is in line with the recommendation made by the ILO supervisory bodies.

Finally, the Committee of Experts refers to strikes, in relation to which I reiterate the position of the Employer spokesperson that the Convention does not contain or explicitly recognize the right to strike and that it is not therefore for this Committee to examine and reach conclusions on this subject, as the right to strike is regulated at the national level in Colombia by specific laws.

Government member, Chile – The Government of Chile endorses the intervention made on behalf of the significant majority of Latin American and Caribbean countries. We thank the Government of Colombia for the report on the progress made in giving effect to the observations of the Committee of Experts on the Convention. We join with the Government in rejecting any type of violence against anyone exercising important trade union activities.

We also wish to emphasize that the Governments of Chile and Colombia are important strategic allies in labour matters. We have worked jointly on subjects covered by our bilateral trade agreement, engaging in cooperation activities and the provision of technical assistance, as well as undertaking important activities to promote employability in the Pacific Alliance.

We encourage all the actors to continue working within the framework of social dialogue to achieve an agreement that benefits workers and to continue promoting bodies such as the Special Committee for the Handling of Conflicts referred to the ILO with a view to resolving differences between the tripartite partners through agreement. This Committee seems to us to be very important, and we therefore encourage the parties to continue working in that context.

Finally, we call on the Government of Colombia to continue its efforts to promote freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize in its territory, and to protect the exercise of trade union rights by the workers of Colombia.

Employer member, Germany – Let me make a couple of comments on behalf of the German employers. The Committee of Experts has recognized the significant progress and efforts of the Colombian authorities, both in terms of the protection of trade union members at risk, and in relation to the clarification and punishment of acts of anti-union violence.

Likewise, the Committee of Experts has recognized and welcomed in its report the active commitment of the State, the initiatives taken to strengthen the effectiveness of the State’s action through inter-institutional coordination, as well as consultation with the social partners.

According to the information provided by the Government, significant progress has been made; proof of this is that, between 2002 and 2020, homicides against trade unionists have been reduced by 97 per cent and significant advances in the investigation and prosecution of crimes against union leaders and trade unionists have taken place.

The progress made and recognized by the ILO supervisory system is the result of the continuous work of social dialogue and of the activities and projects carried out with the support of the ILO.

Finally, I join my colleagues from the Employers who have spoken before me, and who will speak after me, in inviting the Colombian Government, workers and employers to continue advancing along the path of social dialogue and negotiation, which is ultimately the only one that really leads to true reconciliation.

Worker member, Mexico – We are concerned at and robustly reject the violations of the Convention and of ILO standards by the State of Colombia. According to the denunciations of the National Strike Committee and human rights organizations, during the period between 2020 and June 2021, hundreds of people, including trade union and social leaders, have been murdered, persecuted, disappeared and threatened for exercising their lawful right to peaceful social protest in support of labour and social rights in the country.

We consider it to be of the greatest importance for this Committee to urge the Government of Colombia to take all the necessary security and protection measures to guarantee the life and physical safety of our companion, Percy Oyola Palomá, President of the CGT, all the leaders of the National Strike Committee and, in particular, Colombian citizens.

This Committee must approve a high-level tripartite mission and request the State of Colombia to respect freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, require the Government to ensure the effective implementation of social dialogue and tripartism, and establish on an urgent basis a dialogue and negotiation body on the six points of the emergency claims made by the National Strike Committee, including guarantees for peaceful protest and mobilization.

Employer member, New Zealand – I would just like to make two brief remarks in relation to this case. First, to highlight that, as we have been informed, Colombia has implemented a number of positive initiatives to advance the protection of union leaders and trade unionists, efforts that have been recognized by the Committee on Freedom of Association in the cases recently analysed.

The Committee of Experts and other ILO supervisory bodies have also noted with satisfaction the efforts made by Colombia and all of the institutions of that country to advance in the protection of trade union leaders and in the fight against impunity. For this reason alone, the case should not have been included on the Committee’s list this year.

Secondly, in relation to the observations of the Committee of Experts regarding the procedures followed in Colombia for the cancellation of a union’s registration, I would like to emphasize that, according to the information sent by the Government, this cancellation process is expressly carried out by judicial decision. In this sense, Colombian legislation is in line with what is recommended by the ILO supervisory bodies, which have indicated that “Cancellation of the registration of a union should only be possible through the courts.” According to the foregoing, the current legislation and the established procedures do not violate the provisions of the Convention, and again, the Employers believe that there is no case to answer.

Observer, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – The appalling situation in Colombia causes great concern. The workers of Hong Kong can share the pain of Colombian workers who are living through repression and violation of human rights. On 28 April, the National Strike Committee of Colombia, led by the most representative trade unions, called for demonstrations in response to the Government’s regressive measures, including a tax reform that would increase inequality, as well as changes to the labour, pension and health systems. States are prohibited to employ lethal force and firearms against protestors. Law enforcement must also be framed by legality, absolute necessity and proportionality, but for 48 days of general strike, we have witnessed the following as of 31 May: 3,789 cases of violence caused by the security forces; 45 homicides committed by the police and military; 1,700 arbitrary arrests; 65 people suffering eye injuries from teargas rounds and rubber bullets and 25 victims of sexual violence committed by police officers.

The Colombian trade unions have repeatedly urged the Government to provide guarantees for peaceful protest, but President Duque’s response was Decree No. 575 ordering the militarization of seven cities in the country, escalating the violence.

The very least we can ask of this Committee is to scrutinize the serious violations of human and trade union rights carried out in the context of the national strike. The ILO must have a chance to assess the criminal treatment given to social and labour disputes by this Government and recommend an urgent change to the protocols on the reaction to protests, so that they are modified in accordance with international standards.

Finally, this Committee can help trade unions in demanding guarantees for the right to peaceful protest. We should note that a proposal has been on the negotiating table between the Government and the National Strike Committee since 24 May, but the Government has refused to sign it.

Observer, International Organisation of Employers (IOE) – I am taking the floor as the Secretary-General of the IOE. During the period of over ten years when we have not examined this case in the Committee, we have been observing substantial progress in a country that was experiencing a very difficult situation of armed conflict, drug trafficking and ideological radicalism.

This progress has been a collective effort in defence of liberties, for the eradication of violence, to combat corruption and drug trafficking, and to protect trade union leaders and freedom of association. We have seen progress in these areas and a peace process that was not simple, but was very inclusive, and we have also seen important developments in social dialogue.

The country has also seen economic and social progress, the arrival of investment and tourism, although it is clear that, in the same way as many other countries within and outside the region, the pandemic has resulted in a situation involving enterprise closures, job losses and social instability, which the Government is facing with difficulty in a complex context, that is not without episodes of violence of various types, which we do not deny.

But it cannot be doubted that the Government has taken and is continuing to send signals, take action and achieve results. It has accepted the recommendations of the ILO, in contrast with other countries, has financed the presence of the ILO in the country for years and has provided detailed information to the Committee of Experts and also to the Committee on Freedom of Association.

Colombia is a democracy and has demonstrated much progress for many years. It needs great support, not being singled out. This is our approach to the case.

Observer, IndustriALL Global Union – I am speaking on behalf of IndustriALL Global Union, the International Transport Workers’ Federation, Education International and Public Services International to express serious concerns about the extreme violence in Colombia, with homicides of union leaders and members from all sectors.

Death threats targeting union and social leaders are not isolated incidents. They are rather part of an escalation of violence against civil society under the current Administration. In La Guajira, 226 permanent workers at a powerful multinational mining company were fired without any negotiated just transition measures for the affected workers, as the company alleged “sustainable measures”.

The dismissal came as brutal retaliation for the successful 90-day strike carried out last year to refuse the dangerous work shifts introduced. Unions are not consulted as social partners, and we see COVID cases rapidly increasing in all workplaces. In the oil sector, in the largest state-owned company, leaders from the Union Sindical Obrera are blocked and refused entry to their workplaces in flagrant violation of the current collective agreement, using the excuse of the COVID pandemic. The company only allows the entry of scheduled workers, as if union leaders – who, by the way, are also employees of the company – have any impact on the contagion.

The Ministry of Labour alleges the lack of labour inspectors, but with no union leaders on the spot, workers’ rights are trampled in impunity.

In line with the observations of the Committee of Experts and with the recent recommendations of the CFA in Case No. 3316 relating to the right to strike of airline pilots, the Government must bring legislative provisions about strikes in non-essential services, in the strict sense of the term, into conformity with the Convention.

In the light of the current escalation of state violence and brutal repression of legitimate civil protests against structural reforms, the Global Union aligns itself with the Committee of Experts’ recommendations, namely, the Government of Colombia must take “all the necessary measures to ensure that all acts of anti-union violence, including homicides and other acts, … are investigated and that the instigators and perpetrators are convicted”.

Government representative, Minister of Labour – I have taken careful note of the various interventions by all those who have taken the floor, including those interventions that have shown a political colouring. However, I thank them. I thank Governments, as well as Workers and Employers, for the comments that they have made.

Action to combat impunity and violence against trade unions has been a concern for the President of the Republic, Dr Iván Duque, who has given precise instructions to ensure the safety of trade union leaders. For this Government, the reduction by 96 per cent in the number of homicides is important, but we must continue protecting trade union leaders, as even one case, a single murder, hurts us and we reject it. That is why we are continuing with these efforts.

The Office of the Prosecutor-General of the Republic has developed a strategy for the investigation and prosecution of the crimes committed, including in relation to protests, based on 12 action lines.

The national Government respects the right to protest, as well as the right to strike, which have constitutional status. For us, peaceful mobilization is to be respected and protected. What we refute are acts of violence, which have violated rights, not only by demonstrators, but also by those who are not demonstrating. In many cases, the so-called blockades have been in violation of the fundamental rights of citizens, such as access to health, to food, to work and to freedom of movement throughout the national territory. As demonstrated by the commitment of this Government to respect human rights and the right of mobilization, the President of the Republic will present a reform of the national police to the Congress of the Republic.

More specifically, today we have referred to:

• Trade union contracts, which are a concept that is recognized in our labour laws, which have been considered in the National Council for Economic and Social Policy (CONPES) and which have helped to preserve many jobs. However, in the health sector, the Government has proposed a law for their elimination, which has been approved. The trade union confederations themselves asked for the draft legislation to be set aside. We have the political will to abolish trade union contracts in the health sector.
• Cancellation of trade union registration. It is important to emphasize that in Colombia, in contrast with many countries, trade unions have been very protected in this respect. According to our database on the trade union register since 1920 until now, that is a period of 101 years, there has only been one cancellation, through the courts. It is important to note that this concept is set out in the Labour Code and that the authority that has the competence to declare an organization unlawful, at the suggestion of the ILO itself, is the judicial authority.

We conclude as follows: we will continue to move forward in providing assistance, care and compensation to all the victims of the conflict and, for that purpose, within the next ten days, the Government will invest US$39 million to compensate the victims of this armed conflict. I therefore reiterate my call to the ILO to continue providing support for the deepening of social dialogue, with all the partners in our country. As a Government, we believe in the power of this tool to seek alternatives that can improve the social and economic fabric.

We are emphatic in reaffirming that social dialogue is one of the fundamental pillars of our Government, and for this reason all our actions are characterized by the search for consensus and respect for the right to organize and freedom of association, and are supported by trade unions.

And in this specific endeavour, our institutions take immediate action. As soon as we became aware of the threats against our trade union delegate, who spoke today, we immediately and publically refuted the threats. I personally took the necessary measures to reinforce his security plan. We take action when faced with any threat, and for this reason it is very important for us to be clear about our attitudes in relation to trade union leaders.

It has been said here that during the social protests over recent days, there have been murders of trade union leaders. We refute this allegation, which is unfounded. And for this reason we are surprised when it is claimed that difficulties exist in Colombia in exercising the right to organize.

The Government of Colombia has always worked hand-in-hand with the ILO. For this reason, now more than ever, and more than they tell us, we need the support of the international community to be able to move forward in the face of these situations. This is shown by the ILO report that indicates that Colombia, with 26 per cent, is the second country in the world (the first is Brazil) in terms of providing its own resources for cooperation and assistance projects.

This year, Colombia has allocated over US$4 million to these projects.

I do not wish to leave without saying that I have heard that this is a serious Committee, that it has clearly established procedures. However, sometimes when certain interventions are heard, there appears to be a political dimension present. I do not believe that this Committee should allow itself to be influenced by these political opinions, and I believe that here we should express technical opinions in law, as it should be. We will therefore continue working with this commitment endorsed by the national Government in relation to the Convention that is under examination by the Committee. I therefore request the secretariat to remove all those comments that have nothing to do with the Convention that were made during today’s sitting.

This is why we are still surprised that, even though we work hand in hand with the ILO, Colombia has been told that it is not in strict compliance with the provisions of the Convention.

We have presented progress, particularly on the issue of impunity and penal sentences, and we will continue working in this direction. There is much evidence that the history of the country has changed, which is also as a result of the cooperation provided by the ILO.

Accordingly, I would like to say one final thing. Colombia is experiencing acts of violence perpetrated by persons such as drug traffickers, violent individuals, mafias and others, who have infiltrated the protests. We therefore once again robustly refute violence, We condemn and will punish acts of violence against any Colombian citizen, whatever its origin, and we ask this Committee to listen carefully to the information provided in our interventions and the report of over 200, or 300 pages, that we have provided, and we will continue to inform the world, the ILO and governments and all those who seek any necessary information on what is happening in Colombia.

For this reason we are surprised by many statements, which seem to be ignorant about what is happening in the country, For example, it has been said that we are going to propose labour and pension reforms without prior discussion with the trade unions and employers. We have not proposed any draft legislation of this type. When these claims are made they therefore greatly surprise us.

We will continue to listen to all the voices of the international community, and we will listen not only to workers, but also employers, to move forward out of our social crisis.

At this time of protests, we are establishing a dialogue forum and we are commencing negotiation processes with the Strike Committee, in which many efforts are being made to change the social situation in the country, such as a basic income, formalizing many workers in the health sector, strengthening education and reinforcing everything related to the social aspects of informal workers in Colombia, which is our objective, for which I have requested ILO assistance, for example for the employment mission to help us create new opportunities.

As Colombians, we are currently seeking many avenues to work on and to improve conditions. A demonstration of the commitment of this Government to transparency is that over the past two weeks I was at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, from which we are hoping for results and support.

Colombia is keeping its doors open to the international community. We are not hiding anything at all and, quite the contrary, we reject these forms of violence on social media against the Government of Colombia.

Worker members – We must draw the attention of all participants of this Committee to the 1970 resolution of the International Labour Conference concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties with regard to the relationship between human rights and trade union rights. We recall that, according to the Conference rules, it is the mandate of our Committee to examine the measures taken by Members to give effect to the provisions of Conventions to which they are parties. Therefore, our comments are within the scope of the Convention.

Regarding the suggestion by the Employers that we can rebuild the economy without full respect for fundamental rights, this is unimaginable and incompatible with the Constitution and mandate of this Organization, which is dedicated to social justice.

The report of the Committee of Experts clearly shows that, in the widespread nature of violence, trade unions are particularly targeted for their activities. Trade unions must be particularly protected. As the speeches we have heard today demonstrate, the Government has failed to comply with the observations and conclusions of various bodies of the ILO supervisory system with regard to the right to freedom of association and to organize. Sadly, it is not for lack of technical assistance or of resources, as the ILO and numerous governments have financed or carried out projects to improve industrial relations in the country, and to assist in the reduction of violence and impunity.

The brutal assaults on trade unionists and other members of civil society by the military and the police since late April further call into question the will of the Government to respect its obligations to this Organization.

I would underscore that what we are seeing now is only the current manifestation of a decades-long attack on trade unions. Workers, trade unionists and trade unions have suffered significant harm over many years, and the Employers must not minimize this situation.

Collective reparation is necessary. Necessary to overcome the severe damage of anti-unionism in Colombia. As part of the peace accords, Decree No. 624 of 18 April 2016 ordered the creation and regulation of the commission for the integral reparation of the trade union movement. However, the commission was not created until 23 October 2019, because of the pressure from the union confederations. It met on 30 October to adopt the protocols for the functioning of the commission, but it has not met again, nor has it advanced any of the tasks assigned to it.

Technical staff have not been hired to facilitate the work of the commission. There is no reason why much of the work could not have been carried out virtually during the pandemic. There appears to be insufficient will for the Government to make the progress that we all expect of it, so that workers can finally realize the promise of the fragile peace in Colombia.

Thus, to conclude, we would urge the Government to:

• First, confront anti-union violence by ending anti-union stigmatization and by publicly denouncing the murders of social movement and union leaders. With regard to impunity, the investigative units and specialized courts for the investigation and prosecution of crimes against trade unionists must intensify their efforts.
• Second, with the consultation of trade unions, adopt the necessary preventative and reactive measures to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the protection programme, including both individual and collective protective measures.
• Third, with the consultation of trade unions, adopt legislation that would prevent the use of sham union contracts that undermine the effective exercise of the right to freedom of association by legitimate trade unions.
• Fourth, ensure that the cancellation of union registrations is confined to serious violations of the law, after exhausting other less drastic means of action, and ensure that such measures are accompanied by all the necessary guarantees of normal judicial procedures.
• Fifth, enact the legislative measures which have been the subject of repeated comments of the Committee of Experts.
• Sixth, ensure that the commission for the integral reparation of the trade union movement is convened immediately and works diligently to fully carry out its mandate.
• Seventh, we will request that this Committee include its conclusions on this case in a special paragraph of its report.

Employer members – We have listened carefully to and taken note of the interventions of all those who took the floor. I give special thanks to the Minister and the Deputy Prosecutor-General for their interventions and the information provided, as well as Workers and Employers for their interventions.

I want to react emphatically to and reject the references made by the Worker spokesperson with regard to certain Employers present in the sitting of this Committee. The claim was made that we support the conclusion of economic agreements or seek economic development without respecting human rights. This was not said in the room and I do not know how the Worker spokesperson justifies it, but we reject it and we call for it to be withdrawn from the minutes of this Committee on the grounds that it is absolutely untrue.

I also wish to refer to the indication by the Worker spokesperson that he refutes that this is a case of progress. We are not seeking the endorsement by the Worker members of our opinion on this case and we will continue to argue that in our view there are sufficient elements for us to consider that it is a case of progress and we will need to see this reflected in the conclusions of the case.

Finally, I also wish to react to the comments concerning the protests in Colombia made by several of those who spoke on the case. It appears to us that this is outside the scope of the comments by the Committee of Experts and we are therefore going to request and support the call made by the Government of Colombia for them to be removed from the minutes of this meeting..

In our view, the Government of Colombia has respected the supervisory bodies of this Organization and has reinforced the cooperation projects with the Office, financed totally by funding from the State of Colombia since 2006 when the Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy was signed. The signing of the 2006 Agreement was a landmark for the ILO and particularly for the Government of Colombia and the workers and employers of the country.

As the Minister said, the history of Colombia has changed. Cooperation with the ILO, tripartism, social dialogue and total commitment, decided upon and articulated by all state bodies at the highest level, are key elements of this change.

Of course it is necessary to keep working and to do much more to achieve this possible recovery. The sustainability and confidence of civil society in institutions, a culture of collaboration rather than confrontation, the resolution of all types of disputes through dialogue, the balanced adaptation of labour laws developed collectively, respect for and the protection of the human rights of workers and employers, sustainable enterprises which create genuine, decent and productive employment and decent work are fundamental aspects.

We have before us a State that has worked, is working and wishes to continue working with the ILO and through dialogue as a central tool in the quest for concrete and measurable results with a positive impact.

We have before us a State that is committed to the ILO’s international labour standards and their effective application in law and practice, with the ILO supervisory system, to which it contributes year after year.

We have before us a State that is seeking to consolidate sustainable enterprises and provide workers with the full guarantee of their rights to contribute to the development of a vibrant society, with productive, sustainable and resilient jobs, and decent work.

This Committee must recognize the positive efforts made by the Government with the social partners and request it to continue making progress and providing information on the subject in its next regular report. The ILO must continue supporting Colombia in the efforts that have been made for so many years so that progress continues to be made in compliance with the freedom of association set out in the Convention.

This Committee must also invite the Government to continue providing information on the progress made in investigations and their findings in its next regular report.

The Committee must also conclude that the reinforced regulation of the right of trade unions to organize in Colombia in relation to the cancellation of their registration by judicial means is in conformity with the Convention and in compliance with the objective of protecting trade unions.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee welcomed the efforts made by the Government in the application in law and practice of the Convention. The Committee welcomed the positive steps the Government has undertaken to address the situation of violence in the country and encouraged the Government to continue to engage in measures to ensure a climate free from violence.

Taking into account the discussion and recognizing the challenges that remain, the Committee requests the Government of Colombia to ensure that the Standing Dialogue Forum for Collective Compensation for the Trade Union Movement is convened and works to fully carry out its mandate.

The Committee requests the Government to continue to report on all measures taken, in consultation with the social partners, in its next report.

Another Government representative – We welcome the conclusions drawn up by the Committee. We wish to reiterate the commitment of the Government of Colombia to compliance with the obligations that we have assumed as a Member of this Organization.

We consider that the Committee is the cornerstone of the supervisory bodies, and its broad debates reflect its importance in the International Labour Conference. The objective of the Committee is to provide delegates with the opportunity to examine, through constructive dialogue, the compliance of States with the obligations that they have assumed under the Conventions that they have ratified. In our specific case, Convention No. 87.

We hope that the methods of work of the Committee will continue to be improved, and particularly the application of the rules indicated in document D.1, paragraphs 21, 29, 44 and 45.

The conclusions that the Committee adopts are very valuable tools for States which enable us to continue making progress in the application of international labour standards. We thank the Committee for recognizing the efforts made by the Government and we reaffirm our absolute will to continue working in defence of workers. We will not spare our efforts to continue making progress in the protection of fundamental rights. We hope to be able to continue counting on ILO support for the reinforcement of social dialogue in Colombia. Social dialogue is an effective and essential tool for the strengthening of democracy and social participation. We will continue working to guarantee freedom of association and the right to organize and to make effective progress in the collective compensation of the trade union movement.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2009, Publication: 98th ILC session (2009)

A Government representative said that the Government of Colombia valued the spaces for dialogue which made it possible to analyse the situation in the country in an objective manner, including its achievements and deficiencies, and propose actions intended to continue strengthening institutional capacities and public policies with a view to making progress in ensuring the respect for the rights and well-being of the entire population.

As in 2008, Colombia had agreed to provide information on the developments that had taken place in the past year and listen to the contributions that the delegations wished to propose. The Colombian Government expressed its gratitude for this opportunity and wished to provide an update on the progress made in applying Convention No. 87, which the Committee of Experts had referred to in its 2009 report as a case of progress. The Committee of Experts had indicated its satisfaction with the measures adopted by the Government on matters related to freedom of association, protection of leaders of trade unions and their affiliates, the fight against impunity and the investigation of human rights violations against trade unionists.

She added that the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) had recognized the above in its examination of Case No. 1787, and had indicated that significant progress had been made in respect of violence. With regard to the recommendations made by the CFA, she indicated that her Government had submitted the relevant replies and the information requested.

The Government could not fail to recognize that the violence that had been affecting the country for more than four decades had had an impact on the trade union movement, which was why it had spared no efforts to strengthen the effectiveness of protection programmes covering the unionized as well as other vulnerable populations. The Government continued to work tirelessly to overcome the causes of violence, mainly drug trafficking and other activities connected to drug trafficking, and other forms of organized crime, by means of which the illegal armed groups financed themselves so as to commit terrorist acts.

In the past seven years, as a result of the Democratic Security Policy, the overall homicide rate among the Colombian population had been reduced by 44.1 per cent and the rate of homicides against trade unionists had fallen by 81 per cent. As of 3 June 2009, a total of 6,722 homicides had been committed in the country, 14 of which were of persons linked to the trade union movement. On this date in 2008, there had been 22 homicides of unionized persons; in 2002, there had been 116 assassinations of trade unionists.

According to trade union centres, there had been 17 violent deaths of trade unionists in 2009. It was appropriate to note that there were often discrepancies between the official statistics and those reported by workers' organizations. In the Government's view, working together to agree on methodologies to improve the measurement methods could only strengthen their abilities to diagnose and deal with a phenomenon to be eradicated. The speaker emphasized that the problem concerned human lives, and so deserved the Government's full attention and condemnation.

She proposed that, in the framework of the Tripartite Agreement and with ILO assistance and cooperation, workers, employers and the Government explore ways to make progress in reaching agreement on methodology.

With regard to the progress made in the investigation of cases of human rights violations against trade unionists, she indicated that since the conclusion of the Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy, in the framework of the 95th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2006, significant progress had been made, as was evidenced by the number of sentences imposed in the past three years.

The supplementary work by the Office of the Attorney-General, through the specialized sub-unit to address cases of violence against trade unionists and the Higher Council of the Judiciary, which established three permanent tribunals exclusively dedicated to investigating crimes against trade union members, had strengthened the actions of the Colombian State to combat impunity, making it possible to clarify facts and bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. Since 2002, significant progress had been made in investigating such cases. Up to now, 188 judgements had been delivered, 75 of which were related to crimes committed in 2008, and as a result, 291 persons had been convicted and 175 were in prison. With regard to homicides of unionists committed in 2009, three persons had already been arrested. The sentences given up to now for crimes committed in 2008, indicated that the deaths of unionized workers had been the result of the same factors as those resulting in deaths in the Colombian population as a whole, that is, general delinquency, theft or personal reasons.

The actions taken to combat impunity supplemented the measures adopted as part of the policy to protect and ensure workers' rights through the protection programme, by means of which security schemes were provided to populations that had felt threatened or vulnerable owing to the situation of violence the country had been experiencing. In 2009, a total of US$45 million had been budgeted in the national budget for the populations covered by this programme, including the unionized population.

With respect to labour standards, the Government followed the principles enshrined in the ILO Constitution in matters related to the adoption of the necessary measures to give full effect to ratified Conventions. In this respect, labour standards had to be applied both in law and in practice. To this end, Colombia had followed a sustained process of harmonization to bring its legislation into conformity with the spirit and letter of the international labour Conventions it had ratified, thus reaffirming its full commitment to fundamental principles and rights at work.

In 2008, for the sake of strengthening the struggle to end the violence that was affecting trade union organizations as well as the population as a whole, the Government had submitted a bill to Congress intended to increase the length of sentences and prescription for the murder of a trade union member. This bill increased the penalty for preventing or intervening in the exercise of the right to organize. The speaker indicated that the status of the approval process of the bill was well under way with only one debate left, that in the Senate Plenary, before its final submission for presidential approval and subsequent application.

Furthermore, in 2008, Act No. 1210 was enacted, which granted judges the power to declare illegal strike actions or collective work stoppages that failed to respect the law. By virtue of this legislation, such a declaration fell now within the competence of the Labour Chamber of the Higher Court, and no longer that of an administrative authority. Likewise, the Substantive Labour Code had been amended, under which formerly a compulsory arbitration tribunal could be convened under the competency of the Ministry of Social Protection, 60 days after the beginning of a strike. Currently a request to submit a complaint to an arbitration tribunal had to come from both parties, employers and workers alike; this had solved another of the legislative discrepancies contradicting international labour standards, in accordance with the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts.

The Ministry of Social Protection had competent mechanisms for inspection, supervision and monitoring that made it possible for workers to lodge complaints throughout the entire national territory whenever they felt their labour rights were being violated.

With the help of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a preventative inspection strategy was being formulated to strengthen the functioning of the organic structure of the Territorial Administration of the Ministry of Social Protection, including in essential sectors of the economy, and to review the activities of the labour inspectors. In this respect, since the issuing of Decree No. 1294 of 2009, 212 new posts had been created in the Inspection and Monitoring System, of which 135 were labour inspectors. Among these posts, 95 would be filled in 2009 and 40 in 2010.

With respect to associated work cooperatives, Act No. 1233 had been enacted in 2008, stipulating the structural elements of social security contributions and creating special contributions under the responsibility of the Associated Work Cooperatives and Pre-cooperatives. The same Act prohibited the payment of wages below the minimum wage and the use of the minimum wage as a bargaining point in labour negotiations. Furthermore, Decree No. 535 of 2009, had been issued, which provided for the procedures and bodies to develop the consultation processes in state entities, giving priority to dialogue as a means to address working conditions in the public sector and to regulate employer-worker relations in public entities. This Decree had opened a new chapter in the right to collective bargaining for public employees in Colombia. This Decree had already brought concrete and satisfactory results, as consultation processes had taken place in the District of Bogota, in the Ministry of Social Protection and the Ministry of Education, and an agreement had been concluded with the Colombian Federation of Educators (FECODE).

With respect to registering trade unions, in 2008 the Constitutional Court had ordered the Ministry of Social Protection to accept the submission of new trade union organizations as well as amendments to their statutes. These orders were being fully met.

The Government emphasized the importance of social dialogue as a fundamental tool for strengthening labour relations, and reiterated its will and commitment to encourage existing tripartite spaces, improving their procedures and establishing the bases for concluding agreements and achieving tangible results in the medium term.

In 2009, regular meetings had been held with the National Consultation Commission on Labour and Wages Policies, under the leadership of the Minister of Social Protection, with a view to analysing the impact of the global economic and financial crisis on employment in the country.

The speaker underscored the work done by the ILO representative in Colombia in implementing the Tripartite Agreement, which had facilitated the reactivation of the Special Commission for the Handling of Conflicts Referred to the ILO (CETCOIT). In the Government's opinion, this was a valuable opportunity that had to be strengthened to help resolve labour conflicts involving the social partners in Colombia, prior to submitting them to the relevant bodies of the ILO. Equally important were the actions taken in the framework of the Inter-institutional Commission for Human Rights, in which the investigative bodies, the Government and trade unions participated to analyse and follow-up cases of violence against leaders of trade unions and their affiliates.

The Government was firmly committed to the consolidation and strengthening of these opportunities for dialogue and was ready to dedicate all the additional efforts required to ensure the achievement of better results. To this end, some of the cooperation projects that were being carried out in the framework of the Tripartite Agreement were envisaging the realization of an assessment of the situation in these opportunities for dialogue, with a view to strengthening them and thereby facilitating the conclusion of agreements.

The technical cooperation programme was an essential element in the development of the Tripartite Agreement and therefore the support of the ILO had been essential, through its headquarters in Geneva, its Regional Office in Lima and its permanent representative in Colombia. Since the establishment of the ILO representation in Bogota, the social partners had made continuous efforts to move the programme's activities forward and adequately follow-up the projects by means of periodic tripartite meetings. These projects had been financed for the most part by the Colombian Government, some of the resources having come from the assistance programmes of the governments of Canada and the United States. For purposes of continuing to implement the cooperation programme, the Government had already budgeted resources for the current year and was negotiating additional resources for 2010.

The speaker reiterated that the Government was willing to dialogue, with an indelible spirit of openness and an unwavering commitment to continue making efforts to work every day for the improvement of living conditions for the entire population and to guarantee respect for the rights of all its citizens, including unionized workers. In this spirit, it appreciated the suggestions made in a constructive manner and which helped to keep reinforcing the institutions and policies intended to achieve these goals.

In conclusion, she indicated that the Government appreciated the Committee of Experts having recognized Colombia as a case of progress. This encouraged her Government to continue to move forward along the path drawn by the signing of the Tripartite Agreement and to continue to seek agreement, notwithstanding the conceptual differences that might occur between the social partners.

The Worker members thanked the representative of the Government of Colombia for the information provided. They recalled that in 2008 the Committee on the Application of Standards had concluded its consideration of this case by expressing its concern about the increasing acts of violence against trade unionists. The Committee had asked the Government to continue to strengthen existing measures of protection and ensure that investigations of the murders of trade unionists could be carried out quickly. In addition, an increase in the resources necessary to fight impunity had been required, including, in particular, the appointment of additional judges specialized in treating cases of violence committed against trade unionists. All these measures were seen as essential for the trade union movement to carry out its activities and develop in a climate free of violence. The Committee had also noted the Government's statement that dialogue was continuing on several topics, such as essential public services, cooperatives, and the strengthening of the inspectorate. It had expressed the hope that various legal provisions would be adopted, in accordance with the Convention, so as not to deprive workers of freedom of association and collective bargaining and to guarantee the right to establish organizations of their choice, including in the public sector, without prior authorization, and the right to become affiliated to these organizations. Finally, the Committee had considered that the strengthening of the ILO presence in Colombia was needed to facilitate the effective implementation of the Tripartite Agreement of 2006, and had requested a detailed report on all the issues mentioned above for the session of the Committee of Experts in November-December 2008.

The Worker members noted that in the last report of the Committee of Experts, Colombia appeared as a case of progress relating to the application of Convention No. 87. In 2008, the Government of Colombia stated in the Committee that "talking about a case in progress required an objective analysis to be carried out in order to look for mechanisms which would allow progress to be made on the subject that should interest and bring together everyone: the improvement of the labour conditions in Colombia. This exercise made it necessary to recall and face the past, look at and analyse the present and project into the future the efforts that should continue to be made ...". The Worker members could not but agree with this statement. One year after these promises and three years after the conclusion of the Tripartite Agreement and the high-level mission, it was time to take stock of the development of the situation that had lasted for more than 20 years. Yet, this year again, one had to speak of murders, impunity and associated work cooperatives, as well as of the activities of the ILO Office in Colombia, which started in 2007, but were currently stalled since the ILO representative was called back to ILO headquarters. At this stage, the Worker members indicated that they would focus on a number of points raised in the report of the Committee of Experts.

Regarding trade union rights and civil and political liberties, it was true that in 2007, as part of its programme to protect persons under threat, the Government allocated US$13 million, on a total budget of US$40 million, to protect members of the trade union movement, representing 20 per cent of the beneficiaries of this programme. According to the report of the Committee of Experts in 2008, the budget was estimated at US$45 million and in June 2008, 1,466 trade unionists had benefited, or 18 per cent of the beneficiaries. In addition, a system of theoretically mandatory reporting intended for the Administrative Department of Security was put in place relating to the risks faced by trade unionists and their protection and a virtual network had to be established to manage the risk alerts in real time. However, the report of the Committee of Experts noted also that the number of murders of union leaders and union members had increased. Colombia remained one of the most dangerous countries for those who claimed the free exercise of the right of association and this right was thwarted by both public authorities and by some employers. Forty-eight trade unionists were murdered in 2008, and there were already 17 murders of trade unionists reported between 1 January and 12 May 2009. The Worker members urged the Government and employers to do everything possible to stop all forms of persecution against trade unions and their members. Effective social dialogue with free and responsible trade unions was essential to lift the country out of economic crisis and a development factor for sustainable economic growth. This had been recognized by many speakers during the discussions that took place last week. The Worker members underlined that Colombia could not be an exception on this point.

As for the fight against impunity, the three national trade union centres recognized the efforts of the Attorney-General's Office to advance the investigation of cases of fundamental rights violations of trade unionists. However, although a sub-unit was created to prosecute and punish homicides against trade unionists since 1986, a slowdown in investigations had been observed. In addition, the motivation of certain judgements was ambiguous and created confusion between the real nature of the acts that were perpetrated, which were related to the exercise of freedom of association, and crimes of passion or common law. Criminal investigations in respect of acts against freedom to organize and freedom of association as referred to in section 200 of the Penal Code, showed that this law was poorly applied and did not produce the desired results. While some positive results had been recorded on the level of the judiciary and the Office of the Attorney-General, the Worker members regretted that the rate of impunity in cases of violations of the rights of trade union leaders and workers was still 96 per cent. According to the information available between 2008-09, the Attorney-General's office recorded no significant progress in ongoing criminal investigations. Of the 2,707 murders reported by the trade union organizations, only 1,119 had been subject of police investigation and 645 were the subject of legal proceedings. This meant that in half of the cases, no physical perpetrator had been identified, not to mention the persons behind the assassination.

The Committee of Experts noted the establishment of the Inter-Institutional Commission on the Human Rights of Workers, which met on 29 July 2008. The Worker members did not dispute that workers' representatives had participated in the work of this Commission, but regretted that the implementation of the planned actions took too long. One could not contend oneself with purely cosmetic answers, in the face of the real problems of trade unionism in Colombia. The answer lay in effective compliance with social dialogue in practice through its two basic components: freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.

The report of the Committee of Experts did not raise many points regarding workers' cooperatives and other forms of outsourcing that undermined the right to decent work. In 2006, the Government passed a legislative decree banning the use of cooperatives as intermediate or agencies for temporary work, and today, new laws on social security and minimum wage were announced. When workers performed their tasks, as part of a relationship of subordination, which fell within the ordinary framework of enterprise activities, they should be treated as employees under a genuine employment relationship and thus had to be accorded the right to join a trade union. In reality however, constant violations of the provisions of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 de facto reinforced the activities of cooperatives.

The Worker members also denounced practices already reported in 2008 and that were ongoing, such as the collective pacts, or the voluntary benefit plans (planes de beneficio voluntario) by which employers provided certain benefits, such as a slight wage increase to workers who renounced the right to unionize or enjoy collective bargaining coverage. The Colombian Constitution and national legislation referred to the principle of dialogue and consultation to promote good relations between employers and workers, to resolve collective labour disputes, and to reach agreement on policies on wages and conditions of work. However, despite these legislative moorings, social dialogue was not effective and the proposed reforms were without consulting the unions. Accordingly, the Worker members urged the Government to prove its good will by implementing an effective social dialogue in both the public and the private sector.

Regarding legislative matters, the Committee of Experts noted in its latest report that it had been commenting on the application of Articles 2, 3 and 6 of Convention No. 87 for several years without any real result. It, however, noted with satisfaction the developments on a very limited point concerning Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention - that the law entrusts to the judicial authority exclusively, as part of a preferential procedure, the right to declare a strike illegal. The three trade union centres of Colombia welcomed with interest this legislative change and hoped that, in this area, the jurisprudence of the courts would follow that of the CFA.

As regards the remaining matters, the comments of the Committee of Experts confirmed issues already raised in the past that have remained unanswered to this day. According to the Worker members, legislative changes had certainly been made, but only with respect to an isolated point; furthermore they had yet to be proven as far as their practical application was concerned. They therefore questioned whether the inclusion of this case in the list of "cases of progress" was justified, in relation to other cases included in that list and the criteria set by the Committee of Experts in 2005. Indeed, one was still far from saying "the problem is solved" within the meaning of these criteria. In the specific context of Colombia, a legislative amendment cannot be assessed outside the context established by the killings, human rights abuses and persistent impunity. This case was not self-evidently a case of progress; positive developments had occurred, but the Worker members remained very concerned.

The Employer members commended the Government for choosing to be the first to appear before the Committee this year and for the statement delivered by the Deputy Minister of Social Protection. They noted the information provided on the decline of the overall number of murders and especially the murders of trade unionists. One murder was a murder too much, and although there had been substantial improvements, people from all walks of life continued to face risks. The Government had provided information on the increase of prosecutions, and the adoption of laws, and judicial decisions concerning cooperatives, the registration of trade unions and the resolution of disputes where there was a collective bargaining impasse. These changes appeared recent and the Committee of Experts, in its fact-finding role, would have to give an appreciation of these legal developments which appeared very positive. The Government had also given positive indications on social dialogue.

This case was the only one on the list of cases where the Committee of Experts had expressed its satisfaction on any aspect of the case. Progress was defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) or as a gradual betterment, especially the progressive development of humankind. Similarly, the Cambridge Dictionary defined progress to mean advancement to an improved or more developed state, or to a forward position. Although there was still much to do to bring Colombia into full compliance with the Convention, the Government had taken steady, meaningful positive steps over the past decade.

Over the years, the Employer members had taken a principled approach to addressing this case. Until 2005, this case had been discussed for 25 straight years without interruption in the context of the longest running civil war. During those 25 years, limited progress had been made. In February 2000, a direct contacts mission had been sent to Colombia followed by the Governing Body appointing a Special Representative of the Director-General in 2001 and authorizing a technical cooperation programme in 2003. In 2005, an historic Tripartite Agreement had been reached at the ILO Conference and this Committee had given the Colombia tripartite delegation a standing ovation. At the 2005 session of the International Labour Conference, Colombia had agreed to accept a High-level tripartite visit of the Chairperson of the CFA and the Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons of this Committee. They had been allowed full access and transparency during this visit including a meeting with the President. On 1 June 2006, a Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy had been signed in Geneva with the purpose of strengthening protection of fundamental rights - in particular, protection for trade union leaders, trade union freedoms, freedom of association and promotion of decent work. To facilitate the implementation of this agreement, the Office had established a permanent office in Bogota. During the 2007 session of the International Labour Conference, a high-level mission had been established to identify the additional needs in order to guarantee the effective implementation of the Agreement and the technical cooperation programme in Colombia. The high-level mission had visited Bogota in November 2007 and made a very positive report to which there had been no opposition in the Governing Body.

The main issues raised by the Committee of Experts in this case concerned the situation of violence and impunity as well as certain legal and legislative matters against the background of several decades of continuous civil war. Since 2001, the level of violence against trade unionists had declined substantially along with the overall rate of homicides. It was important to note that the targets were not only trade unionists but also teachers, judges and other prominent personalities in society. Last year, this Committee had been concerned about the increase in trade union violence in 2008. The Committee of Experts noted in its latest report that the protection budget had increased by US$43 million, with 30 per cent of it going exclusively to trade union member protection. The CFA in its 353rd Report in Case No. 1787, had said that "With regard to acts of violence in particular, the Committee observes that considerable progress has been made in combating violence." The Committee of Experts this year and last year noted that the Colombian central unions acknowledged the increased efforts of the Attorney-General to secure prosecutions and convictions. From just one verdict in 2000, there had been 76 in 2008. In line with the Committee of Experts' comments, the Government should continue these efforts as a matter of urgency through the systematic work of prosecutors and judges. The Employer members expressed the hope that these measures would lead to improvements in tackling the situation of impunity.

With regard to the legislative matters raised by the Committee of Experts, one important issue was the inappropriate use of cooperatives, an issue that had been focused upon by the high-level tripartite visit to Colombia in 2005. As the Committee of Experts pointed out, employees in such circumstances should be treated as regular employees with the same terms and conditions of employment and eligibility to join a trade union. The Employer members took note of the proposed 2007 Decree intended to level the playing field on this issue as mentioned by the Government, and asked that it be enacted expeditiously.

With regard to the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerning obstacles to the registration of trade unions and their activities, it was understandable that in the current climate of unrest, the Government might wish to ensure that trade union functions did not go beyond normal trade union activities; however, Article 2 of the Convention clearly required that workers' and employers' organizations should be able to establish themselves without previous authorization. The Government had recognized this today and changes had been made.

Moreover, keeping in mind that the Convention provided no express right to strike, the Employer members took note of the legislation mentioned today by the Government representative, which would allow the parties to establish their own dispute settlement process in lieu of the current compulsory arbitration process. Furthermore, substantial resources should be allocated to the judiciary and labour tribunals as well as to the strengthening of labour inspection services. Finally, active steps should be taken to resolve the other issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

In conclusion, the Employer members expressed the hope that the Government would continue to take steps to improve the situation as it had done in the past.

The Government member of the Czech Republic speaking on behalf of the member states of the European Union as well as Norway and Switzerland, stated that violence against trade unionists in Colombia remained a significant concern. In spite of the continued efforts of the Government of Colombia, 17 trade unionists had been murdered since the beginning of this year. Since violence could not be overcome without fighting impunity, the Government should be encouraged again to intensify the investigative activities relating to acts of human rights violations of trade union members. In that respect, the speaker welcomed the increase in size of the special sub-unit for cases of trade unionists within the Office of the Attorney General as mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts. Although the number of cases of violence against trade union members under investigation compared favourably to the investigation of cases of other victims of violence, the Government should be urged to further increase the efforts being made to fight impunity effectively.

Although the efforts of the Government to improve the situation should be acknowledged, violence still prevented the workers' and employers' organizations from exercising their activities in full freedom. Therefore, the speaker once again expressed support for the protection programme for trade unionists and encouraged the Government to ensure that all trade unionists who were at risk enjoyed adequate protective measures which commanded their trust.

While noting with interest the recent improvements in the legislation, namely the amendment of provisions regarding the body responsible for issuing decisions on the legality of a strike adopted last August, the speaker urged the Government, like the Committee of Experts, to take without delay all necessary steps to amend other legislative provisions commented in the report of the Committee of Experts in order to bring them into line with the provisions of the Convention. In this light, the importance of enhanced cooperation between the Government and the social partners should be stressed. Close cooperation with the ILO and its representative office in Bogota were crucial.

The speaker therefore reiterated the request to the Director-General to provide an assessment of the role of the ILO's presence in Bogota in support of promoting labour relations in Colombia. Finally, the speaker expressed his full support for the work of the ILO and its permanent representation in Bogota in helping to ensure respect for ILO fundamental Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and promote labour relations, the role of trade unions, social dialogue and the technical cooperation programme in Colombia in line with the Tripartite Agreement.

A Worker member of Colombia said that, over the last 20 years, the Committee of Experts had made 19 observations on the application of Convention No. 87 in Colombia and that the case had come before the Conference Committee on 15 occasions. This meant two things: the Government continued to violate Convention No. 87 and the situation had not changed, despite the efforts of the ILO. In all cases, the Government had made commitments and promises but had not delivered. The same had occurred with the 137 cases presented to the CFA. In practically all of them, the Government had not complied with the recommendations made.

The matter at hand was a case of serious violations that compromised the reliability of the State in terms of what it had promised: to bring legislation and practice into line with international labour agreements.

The Government, in its statement, had referred to certain measures taken with regard to investigating crimes against trade unionists, regulating strikes, associated work cooperatives and consultations with public employees. None of these measures followed the recommendations made by the ILO, nor did they respond to the serious situation of exclusion, stigmatization and violence against trade unions. They simply gave the appearance of compliance.

The speaker underlined that this systematic avoidance of international commitments had resulted in the following situation: In Colombia there were almost 18 million workers, of whom barely 4 per cent were union members. Only 1.2 per cent had negotiated their working conditions in the previous year and it had only just proved possible to hold strikes on two occasions. From 2002 to 2008, the trade union movement had lost more than 120,000 members. The Ministry of Social Protection had refused to register 253 new trade unions. There had been a drop of 20 per cent in collective agreements and 40 per cent in collective bargaining coverage.

The number of associated work cooperatives had increased five-fold, despite the many observations of the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee, leaving more than 500,000 workers without the rights to associate, bargain or strike and in precarious labour conditions. Community mothers were also not recognized as workers.

Trade unionism was portrayed as the enemy of the State and enterprise. The Government continued to make hostile statements linking trade unions to armed groups. It had recently been discovered that the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT), the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC), magistrates from the higher courts, some of whom were participating in the Conference, and other persons and organizations had had their communications illegally intercepted during the last five years by the President's intelligence organization (DAS). It had been proven that this same organization had given paramilitaries a list of 22 trade unionists to be assassinated, for which its ex-director, Jorge Noguera, was being tried on four counts of murder. Paramilitary groups had been mainly responsible for the murders, or in some cases guerrillas. In addition, between 1986 and 2008, 41 cases of extrajudicial killings of trade unionists, presumed to have been carried out by the authorities, had been reported, of which 21 had occurred under the present Government.

In the last 23 years, more than 10,000 acts of violence against trade unionists had been committed, including 2,709 murders, 498 under the present Government. Between 2003 and 2007, there had been a 60 per cent drop in murders, but 2008 had seen an increase of 72 per cent in acts of violence and 25 per cent in murders, from 39 in 2007 to 49 in 2008. So far in 2009, 18 trade unionists had been assassinated. The climate of insecurity surrounding trade unionism was such that more than 1,500 officials were under protection. All these figures contradicted the Government's argument that anti-union violence was a problem that had been overcome and was under control.

The speaker added that, despite the creation of a special unit of magistrates and judges, efforts to investigate and prosecute such crimes were poor. Of the 2,709 murders that had taken place since 1986, the Attorney-General's Office was investigating only 40 per cent. Guilty verdicts had been handed down in 118 murder cases. The impunity rate was 95 per cent, while other crimes against trade unionists showed an impunity rate of 99 per cent. The rulings handed down did not allow the truth to come out. The trade union movement had vehemently insisted that all cases be investigated, that there be changes in the investigation methods used, and that victims' rights to truth, justice and compensation be guaranteed by statute. At the current rate of passing sentences, it would take 37 years for justice to overcome impunity, always supposing that no more murders occurred and that the special investigation and prosecution unit remained in place.

This situation could be overcome if social dialogue were of any use. Even with a Permanent Commission for Social Partnership, however, it was impossible to see any results, because of lack of political will on the part of the Government. It had not been possible to agree on an agenda for applying Convention No. 87. Furthermore, the Government had not put the Acts on strikes and regulation of cooperatives or the decree on social partnership with public workers through a process of social dialogue.

Lastly, the speaker requested the Committee to adopt a special paragraph, which, on that occasion, as well as detailing serious non-compliance with regard to Convention No. 87, would urge the Government to agree and adopt with the social partners immediately or within no more than one year, the following policies and measures:

- recognizing the legitimacy and role of trade unionism in a democratic society;

- preventing acts of anti-union violence and fully investigating such crimes;

- compensating trade unions and unionist victims so as to restore trade union freedoms;

- fully reforming the Substantive Labour Code, in accordance with international labour Conventions, ILO recommendations and the Constitution;

- taking action to comply with the recommendations of the CFA;

- establishing a Ministry of Labour and strengthening the labour inspection services;

- setting up a national plan for the promotion of decent work;

- evaluating and strengthening the ILO's permanent representation in Colombia.

The Government member of the United States indicated that the application of the Convention by Colombia had been an issue of long-standing, and at times grave concern in this Committee and the other supervisory bodies of the ILO. Since the signature of the Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy by the Government and its social partners in the presence of this Committee in 2006, and thanks in large part to the assistance of the ILO, important initial steps forward had been taken. As the CFA had noted in March 2009, the Government had made progress in combating violence against trade union members and officials. In particular, the Government's efforts to protect at-risk individuals, and to investigate, prosecute and convict perpetrators of violence should be noted. In addition, there had been recent progress in resolving a number of legislative issues raised by the Committee of Experts, some of which had been commented upon for many years.

The Government's cooperation with the ILO should be appreciated. The United States had contributed significantly to promoting freedom of association in Colombia, and the US President had pledged that the United States would continue to support Colombia's efforts to improve its security and prosperity.

Clearly, however, the situation of Colombian trade union officials and members, and the trade union movement in general, continued to be extremely serious. Violence - and fear of violence - should be eradicated so that workers' and employers' organizations could exercise their activities in full freedom, in line with the requirements of the Convention.

The speaker recognized that the Government of Colombia was aware of the enormous challenges that remained. She trusted that, with the continued assistance of the ILO and through open and active dialogue with its social partners, the Colombian Government would make the necessary efforts to implement fully its commitments under the Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy and its obligations under the Convention.

The Employer member of Colombia indicated that on the basis of the written document that he had prepared to address the Committee it would be difficult to reply to the new elements that had been raised by the Workers and that he preferred to improvise his intervention in reply to them.

It was the first time in 15 years' participation in the Committee that he had heard the spokesperson for the Worker members raise a series of questions concerning a case of progress reported by the Committee of Experts, and curiously this had been done when the action taken on Convention No. 87 by Colombia had been noted with satisfaction.

He quoted from paragraph 52 of the General Report of the Committee of Experts in which it was indicated that since 1964 the Committee had been expressing satisfaction in cases in which measures had been taken through either the adoption of an amendment to the legislation, or a change in national policy or practice. He recalled in this respect that Colombia had indeed introduced changes in all these areas, as indicated in the written document submitted for detailed analysis by the Office.

The Office had examined the situation in Colombia on numerous occasions through direct contact missions, high-level missions and representatives of the Director-General, on all of which reports had been submitted to the Governing Body Committee on Technical Cooperation. For the past two years, the reports had described the positive progress achieved since the conclusion of the Tripartite Agreement in 2006.

He recognized that there had existed in Colombia a problem of violence for over 50 years, which employers were making efforts to overcome. The employers wanted the country to project itself to the outside world and its products and services to gain international recognition, for which reason they were promoting the agenda of the Global Compact. The National Association of Colombian Employers (ANDI) had promoted the establishment of a Latin American Regional Centre to support the Global Compact, which was already in operation in Colombia.

He emphasized that employers were not behind the deaths of trade unionists and that trade unions were respected. Respect for trade union rights was clearly set out in the Tripartite Agreement of 2006, which was being implemented. He emphasized that it was necessary to identify the reasons for the violence against trade unionists. For a year and a half, eight North American and European governments had been wanting to develop a programme with various Colombian investigators to examine the reasons for this violence and from the outset the employers had indicated their acceptance of the study, although it had been opposed by sectors of the workers.

A change in attitude was required to prevent the case of Colombia being examined every year as if there were no improvement. He therefore called for a change of attitude by the Workers so that positive proposals could be developed. The same applied to the Office so that the appropriate progress could be noted.

He indicated that there had been significant recent changes in case law in favour of workers' rights. The Constitutional Court had ruled that there could be no restriction by the Government on trade union registration, as its role was confined to the certification of trade union registration. Legal verification could only be carried out by the courts. In relation to the right to strike, a law had recently established that recognition of the legality or illegality of strikes was the responsibility of the courts, not the Government. There was a legal void concerning the suspension of cases that were before the courts. The previous year there had been a stoppage in the judicial authorities for 40 days and it had not yet been possible to determine whether it had been lawful because the courts had ruled that they were not competent to make such a determination. In other sectors there had been delays over the past year in confirming whether work stoppages were in conformity with the law. The cases in question concerned sugar cane cutters who had impeded the access of unionized workers to the premises of the enterprises and continual strikes in coal transport. In terms of strikes, the country was close to anarchy, which the employers were tolerating to show the world their attitude of respect for trade union rights. However, they called on the workers not to abuse their right to withdraw their labour.

Finally, he indicated that the conclusions should call for all the parties to change their attitudes so as to achieve constructive social dialogue; for the programme of investigation and prosecution of crimes against trade unionists to be pursued; for additional resources to be allocated to the programme and for the protection of trade unionists; and for technical cooperation activities for trade unionists to continue. Moreover, there should be no abuse of legal mechanisms in relation to matters that lay beyond the scope of Conventions Nos 87 and 98. He emphasized the importance of the conclusions acknowledging the progress achieved in Colombia.

With respect to strikes, he underscored that the judiciary determined when they could be called off; the Government could not do so. He added that there was a legal vacuum with regard to the cessation of activity. There had been two work stoppages that lacked a ruling on their legality: the case of sugar cane cutters in Valle del Cauca, and the case of the transportation of coal. The country was close to anarchy, and therefore needed to change in this regard. It required, in effect, that all parties were involved in the change.

Lastly, the speaker requested that the conclusions called for the following: encouraging the social partners, deepening recourse to judicial measures, gathering additional resources for union activities, and calling on the social partners not to abuse legal procedures for matters that went beyond Conventions Nos 87 and 98. He insisted on the importance of recognizing the progress made.

Another Worker member of Colombia thanked the ILO for its continued interest in seeking solutions to the conflict the Colombian trade union movement had been experiencing for more than 30 years, which was a labour as well as a humanitarian conflict. The right to life had to remain the main objective; the situation of the teachers affiliated to the FECODE and the prison guards of the ASEINPEC and other trade unions were too serious to ignore.

The speaker recognized that some progress had been made in the last year on important issues such as the determination of the legality of a strike, which now was under the competence of the judges and not the Government, the use of oral proceedings in court, and the Constitutional Court ruling prohibiting the Government from interfering in the registration of new trade union organizations, the entering of reforms in the statutes or in elections of the administrative boards. In this context, he emphasized the tremendous work done by the Constitutional Court, which had played a determining role in the recognition and application of international conventions at the national level.

Nevertheless, the speaker regretted to say that in matters of freedom of association the situation of the working class was not ideal, owing to the anti-union climate that had been deteriorating over the years. With regard to the right to organize, certain practices that violated Convention No. 87 had continued, which was why most of the time trade unions had to be established clandestinely, since certain employers, when suspecting that a union was being formed, proceeded to dismiss the persons organizing them. This was exacerbated by contractual agreements with tertiary parties which made the situation of workers precarious and prevented them from exercising their right to freedom of association.

The right to collective bargaining was increasingly being affected by the low rate of unionization and by anti-union practices to impose collective contracts in enterprises, such as benefit plans, which were the antithesis of the right to negotiation and led to a situation of chaos in practice. One such example was the case of the founding of a trade union in the multinational TELMEX, where the enterprise, with over 3,000 workers, at noting that a trade union was being formed, proceeded to impose a collective contract so as to preclude a process of negotiation involving all the workers.

The speaker also indicated that Act No. 411 of 1997, by which ILO Convention No. 151 was ratified, and which granted the right to collective bargaining for public servants, continued to lack the needed regulations, without which these workers were still not able to fully exercise this right.

The speaker recalled that the Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy had been adopted in the ILO on 1 June 2006, with the conviction that it would be possible to find a solution to the situation of labour conflicts in the country. Three years later, one could note that the speed with which this Agreement was being implemented was far too slow, which did not totally disqualify it. Nevertheless, it would be gratifying if the Government and the employers would indicate in all honesty whether they truly intended to implement it as required, or whether they would admit before the international community that it had only been a strategy to avoid appearing in the list, but did not represent a genuine intention to initiate a process of change. The speaker indicated that the repetitive nature of these discussions was a nuisance for the Colombian trade union movement, as was the adoption of all kinds of measures from this Committee, without succeeding in finding any definitive solution to the conflicts affecting the country. He also reiterated that Colombia was hoping that the trade union movement would be recognized once and for all in accordance with the constitutional mandate and international labour standards.

Finally, he emphasized that democracy was not complete without trade unions that were sufficiently representative and he urged the employers and the Government, in conjunction with the confederations, to take on the challenge to strengthen, develop, implement and enforce with political will the Tripartite Agreement of 2006, so that the country would as soon as possible become an example of full application of the Political Constitution of Colombia, the ILO Conventions and Recommendations, as well as the commitments taken before the international community.

In conclusion, he stated that the presence of an ILO Office in Colombia, as well as of a representative of the Director-General, in addition to the technical cooperation programme, would be essential for the tasks proposed to succeed.

The Government member of Peru welcomed the information provided by the Government representative of Colombia, which would prove essential to understanding the situation in the country. He noted that the information communicated by the Government emphasized progress made towards ensuring full compliance with freedom of association. Such significant progress could be seen in the fall in the murder rate of trade union members, in the increase in the number of convictions related to cases of violence, and in the increase in efforts to harmonize regulations with international conventions. The path that the Government of Colombia had taken showed its political willingness to guarantee freedom of association. In concluding, he expressed the full support of his Government.

Another Worker member of Colombia stated that the Government persisted in not implementing the decisions of the supervisory bodies, the Committee of Experts and the CFA, which represented a systematic violation of ratified ILO Conventions and Convention No. 87.

As regards unionization, he referred to the existing practice of stigmatizing union activity. He noted that the legislation faced obstacles caused by the forms of labour contracts: civil and commercial contracts and the Associated Work Cooperatives (CTA) fraudulently concealed actual labour contracts, through which employers and governmental entities evaded their social responsibility to pay social security contributions. What made it even worse was that this changed the concept of wage for that of "compensation", allowing them to deny other employee benefits and thereby reducing the income of these workers. This precarious employment increased informal employment, which was recorded at 58 per cent of the economically active population of 20 million and increased poverty above 50 per cent of the population of 44 million inhabitants.

Act No. 1233/2008 sought to regulate the employment relationship; however, this objective had not been attained. On the contrary, the law had contributed to strengthening the CTA in the system of labour exploitation, which was growing in industry, agribusiness, services and government entities. This form of labour contract prevented unionization and the exercise of collective bargaining.

It was important that the Committee ensured the follow-up of the decision taken at its 2006 session, which endorsed the Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy signed by employers, the Government and workers, and envisaged the appointment of an ILO representation in Colombia. The Committee supported the structure of social dialogue towards building a culture of equitable agreement.

The speaker stated that after three years there were no decisions of the Government to promote the implementation of the various dimensions of the Agreement; freedom of association, collective bargaining, anti-union violence and impunity.

He regretted that despite the interest of the ILO Director-General or the ILO representative, the ILO representation had not been successful in its efforts and objectives in the Special Commission for the Handling of Conflicts Referred to the ILO as contemplated by the recommendations of the CFA, due to the denial of the district and regional authorities and national entities.

He observed that the Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy, should be a body that promoted results and that the ILO should reaffirm the importance of social dialogue and tripartism.

He asked the Committee to promote:

- the continuity of the ILO representation in Colombia;

- the immediate review of the Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy by employers, Government and workers, with the assistance and cooperation of the ILO;

- the ongoing monitoring of developments regarding the Agreement through reports and evaluation at each session of the Governing Body.

Finally, he underlined that the effectiveness of social dialogue and consultation depended on the commitment and willingness to obtain equitable results. Therefore, he pointed out that it was unacceptable that the Government considered that it complied with its obligations in the framework of the ILO, in view of the fact that the meetings produced no result and were held in the absence of authorities legally bound to participate.

The Employer member of Argentina, in his capacity as Vice-President of the International Organization of Employers (IOE) and Chairperson of the Employers' group of the Governing Body, said that the Committee of Experts, by noting with satisfaction in its report, had recognized the progress made in Colombia. He emphasized that it was the only case of progress on the list of cases to be examined and that, since the Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy had been signed during the Conference in 2006, the case had not been analysed by the Committee.

He noted that as a result of the Agreement, progress had been made in the battle against impunity and violence towards trade union members. The progress included the creation of a special investigative unit within the Office of the Attorney-General for acts committed against trade union members; the appointment of judges specializing in cases of crime against union members; the allocation of financial resources for those judges to function permanently; the pronouncement of 190 convictions, the majority in the previous two years; 292 arrests made regarding the crimes in question; the increase in the number of protection schemes for union members and the decrease in acts of violence against them.

He stated that there had been a full development, with the assistance and coordination of the ILO representative, of the technical cooperation programme offered by the ILO with resources pledged by the Government of Colombia, with regard to social dialogue, young people, women and the strengthening of local communities. Rulings had been passed in the higher courts that gave constitutional protection to union members with regard to registering trade unions, with decisions to be taken by judges on strikes of high political significance, etc. He also stressed that new laws had been prepared to prevent abuse in labour subcontracting, through the granting of unpaid leave upon the death of a relative and through determining the illegality of strikes.

He stressed that he had come to express satisfaction and to testify to the effectiveness of the decision which led to the tripartite technical cooperation programme and its results, which is not only a case of progress, but also a case of special satisfaction for the ILO. At a time when the complex global crisis and its impacts were weighing down on countries, Colombia had continued in its efforts to overcome the problems which were well known and which had often been debated in the Committee. The problems had not disappeared and would require more action; the employers would continue to support the technical assistance programmes. When the supervisory mechanisms could not only express concern but also note positive progress, the country gained in both external and internal prestige. Finally, he urged that the Committee's conclusions reflected the satisfaction produced by the progress made and hoped that progress would continue to be made in the future.

The Government member of Spain, after noting that the Spanish delegation aligned itself with the statement made on behalf of the European Union, stated that his country had followed the political and social situation in Colombia with great interest. Spanish trade unions maintained close collaboration with their Colombian counterparts. Spanish cooperation with Colombia was both preferential and a priority; programmes had been established in Spain to receive Colombian human rights defenders, including many trade union leaders.

The difficulties that faced the Government of Colombia in normalizing political life, including industrial relations, were well-known. The policy of democratic security, established at the beginning of the current Government's term of office, had succeeded in reducing incidences of violence in all areas, including those related to the world of work. The figures were much improved from previous decades, although there was no doubt that all incidences of violence needed to be eradicated.

As many other speakers had done, he welcomed the sub-unit of the Attorney-General's Office responsible for investigating violations of trade union members' human rights. A reduction in the rate of impunity had been achieved, thanks to the work of the prosecutors.

There had also been some progress with regard to amendments to legislation on trade unions. It was again a work in progress, but it was important that those advances had been made regarding labour legislation and further advances should follow. Consequently, it could not be said that the Government had done nothing in that regard.

He concluded by appealing for social dialogue. The social partners in Colombia should continue down the path of tripartite agreements, such as those signed recently between the Government and the teachers' unions, as happened with the agreements signed in 2006. As had happened in Spain, agreements between the Government, employers and workers would allow industrial relations to change. Whatever agreement was reached in Colombia, even if initially only small, valuable results could be achieved beyond the actual agreement. For that reason, the social and industrial partners in Colombia were called upon to continue on the path of social dialogue and negotiation, which was, by definition, the path of reconciliation.

The Worker member of Spain said that the case of Colombia was a paradigm of the systematic violation of fundamental human rights. The deaths, disappearances, threats and other acts of extreme violence could all be expressed objectively in figures; what was more difficult to quantify was the great damage to the social fabric that had been caused by such anti-union violence. The resulting atmosphere of fear had adverse consequences on trade union activity.

One of the most subtle forms of intimidation was the deterioration of the labour relationship through the promotion of associated work cooperatives and other forms of subcontracting, such as service contracts and civil or commercial contracts that concealed indisputable labour relations. This meant additional difficulties for practising freedom of association and other fundamental social rights.

The Committee of Experts had, over many years, dedicated special attention to Colombia regarding its promotion and abusive use of several forms of contracting in order to avoid labour legislation and prevent the right to organize and collective bargaining. Judging by what had been expressed by the Committee, it did not seem that the labour authorities had been sufficiently vigilant in ensuring that the cooperatives were not used to conceal the labour relationship, which the ILO Promotion of Cooperatives Recommendation, 2002 (No. 193) specifically defended. The unknown number of cooperatives - some operated, to a certain degree, outside the law - made it difficult for the Ministry of Social Protection to carry out the monitoring needed in order to prevent labour intermediation.

During recent years, several examples had been given on how some enterprises dismissed workers in order to then create an associated work cooperative with those workers under similar terms of dependence. But, above all, attention should be drawn to the fact that the Government, even after having approved Law No. 1233 on associated work cooperatives the previous year, had continued to ignore the numerous criteria of the CFA with regard to Article 2 of Convention No. 87, in which the notion of a worker included both the dependent as well as independent, and concluded that workers associated with cooperatives should have the right to establish unions as well as to associate themselves with those unions. Without the right to organize, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for workers to benefit from rights such as social protection, occupational safety and health, a decent salary and appropriate working hours.

In addition to transferring costs from enterprises to workers, by taking on 100 per cent of the costs relating to social security, they were denied fundamental rights, which turned their labour relationship into an updated form of slavery. The worldwide trade union movement valued the fight by the Columbian trade union movement to condemn, at a global level, that form of semi-slavery.

The ILO Director-General, in his report to the current Conference, had reiterated that respect for fundamental labour standards was a sine qua non, in achieving both social justice as well as balanced economic development. The main consequences of that form of capitalism without regulations, which had led to the current crisis, had been the spread of labour insecurity and the unacceptable increase in social inequalities, which was why the centrality of labour, as well as its quality, should be defended in political and economic decisions, with the aim that decent work would be the source of rights and economic progress. To conclude, he proposed that a special paragraph be adopted urging the Government of Colombia to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Government member of Canada acknowledged the difficult situation concerning labour rights in Colombia. He was encouraged, however, by the political will demonstrated by the Government to address violence against trade unionists and protect workers' rights, as reflected in such measures taken as the establishment of a sub-unit of the Attorney-General's human rights unit to pursue anti-union crimes, and the development of new legislation to strengthen labour protection provisions. The Government had also been working closely with the ILO representation office in Bogota to implement the Tripartite Agreement, which includes a labour-related technical assistance to which the Government had committed over US$4 million.

He stated, however, that serious challenges remained as far as ensuring the safety of trade unionists was concerned, and encouraged the Government to increase its efforts to eliminate anti-union violence, bring prosecutions of anti-union crimes to a conclusion, and improve the enabling conditions for effective social dialogue. He expressed his Government's support for the strengthening and enforcing of labour legislation for workers' benefit, including through the provision of technical assistance in the areas of enforcement of labour rights, social dialogue, occupational safety and health, and modernization of labour inspection systems.

The Employer member of Spain stated that, although it was agreed that violence, murders of trade unionists and problems with the effective application of the principle of legal protection of constitutional rights persisted, it was not true that no efforts had been made. Progress had been seen in the fall in the number of people who had been attacked or murdered, in the increase in the number of people convicted of acts of violence against trade unionists, in the increase in budgetary allocation for protection of trade unionists, etc. In addition, the Government's willingness to collaborate with the ILO, as demonstrated by the numerous missions that had been undertaken to the country, should be highlighted.

One of the benefits of such discussions was their capacity to incentivize and stimulate governments by recognizing progress achieved, without denying or detracting from the gravity of the problem, which was particularly worrying in this case.

The Government member of Senegal recalled that at the historic signing of the Tripartite Agreement three years ago, the situation in the country was marked by murders of union leaders and attacks on workers' rights. Unfortunately deep antagonisms still persisted, and one could only be sceptical of the Government's willingness to turn the dark pages of its social history. The Committee had witnessed the conclusion of the Tripartite Agreement, which concerned the right of association and democracy to strengthen the defence of the human rights of workers, their organizations and their leaders; freedom of association; freedom of expression; collective bargaining; free enterprise for employers; and the promotion of decent work. The conclusion of this agreement should contribute to an improvement in the disastrous situation the country found itself in as regards anti-union violence; however, the persistence of violence and impunity, as well as the Government's inability to ensure the effective implementation of this agreement, remained matters of concern. He encouraged the Government to join forces to support the Tripartite Agreement, and intensify its efforts in the fight against those responsible for the murder of trade unionists, instead of hewing to an apparent passivity. The sooner the Government did so, the more significant the ILO's support would become, and the greater the opportunities for a better future for union leaders in the country. Conversely, the future remained bleak as long as the Tripartite Agreement was not fully implemented. The technical cooperation programme offered a glimmer of hope, and it was true that the Attorney-General was active, but the problem of the characterization of the facts in criminal proceedings remained unresolved. The Government was bound by Convention No. 87 and the Tripartite Agreement, and should therefore keep its commitments.

The Government member of Brazil stated that, as one from a neighbouring country, she recognized the great challenges facing the Government of Colombia in the area of labour and, at the same time, recognized the numerous efforts made by successive Colombian Governments to overcome these challenges. Given that one of the functions of the Committee was to promote the greatest possible number of ratifications of ILO Conventions, she had to congratulate the Government of Colombia for having exceeded the regional average for Conventions ratified: 60 Conventions, including Conventions on fundamental rights. The speaker recalled that Brazil and Colombia were both founding Members of the ILO and stated that, in the 90 years the Organization had existed, progress had been made. She expressed the desire for the complexities of individual countries and the seriousness and transparency with which each of them addressed their challenges to be taken into account in the work of the Committee.

The Employer member of Brazil said that the case of Colombia remained significant for the length of time it had persisted and its complexity, as well as for the actions of the ILO. The ILO had sponsored the Tripartite Agreement of 2006, which was of historic importance, and had also decided to establish a special office in Bogota; the Committee was therefore discussing not only the actions taken by the Government, but those of the ILO as well.

The Committee of Experts, the Employers' group and the Workers' group recognized two facts: that the problems to be solved were many and serious, not only with respect to trade unions; and that much progress had been made since the signing of the Tripartite Agreement. He expressed satisfaction at the progress achieved, although he recognized that much remained to be done. He underlined that, since the case displayed progress, that fact should be highlighted in the conclusions. Stating that the region sometimes witnessed disillusionment with United Nations bodies and other multilateral organizations, he underlined the importance of the Committee's conclusions showing that in this case there had been no retrograde steps, but rather advances and progress.

The Government member of Mexico said that the report of the Committee of Experts showed that the situation in Colombia continued to be difficult, although it had also indicated some progress in the efforts made by the Government. For example, although the Committee noted with deep concern the rise in the number of trade union leaders and members who had been murdered, it also recognized all the measures taken by the Government, in particular the increase in funds allocated for the protection of union leaders and members.

Furthermore, although the Committee of Experts expressed regret at the fact that the number of convictions for violations of trade unionists' human rights continued to fall, it also noted all the measures taken by the Government, in particular efforts made to pursue investigations of violations of the human rights of trade unionists. The Committee had underlined that these efforts had been recognized by international organizations.

The Committee of Experts noted with satisfaction that Act No. 1210 amended section 451 of the Substantive Labour Code, such that the legality or illegality of a collective work suspension or stoppage would be declared by the judicial authorities in a priority procedure. The speaker considered that such efforts should be recognized, while at the same time urging the Government of Colombia to continue working to guarantee full compliance with Convention No. 87.

The Worker member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Nordic trade union organizations, recalled that the Committee had repeatedly noted that freedom of association could only be exercised in a climate free from fear. In Colombia, fear was consistently used in concerted attempts to destroy the trade union movement, there was no trade union liberty and the state of impunity was truly shocking.

She questioned the considerable progress the Government claimed to have made in bringing the guilty to justice, as long as the number of killings remained high and was even again increasing. Of the 2,709 killings, only 1,119 cases were being investigated and half of those were in the preliminary stage. Less than four per cent of the guilty had been punished. In the case of death threats and kidnappings, the rates of impunity were 99.9 per cent and 93.7 per cent, respectively. There was 100 per cent impunity in cases of forced disappearances, torture and harassment by the authorities.

Although it was true that the Attorney-General's Office and the Supreme Judicial Council created an Attorney-General's sub-unit to investigate and punish the homicides committed since 1986 and that this unit did produce some results at first, its work had stalled. With the exception of the homicides committed after June 2006, where confessions had been attained, neither the motives nor the intellectual authors had been established. The criminal investigations of acts against the right to freedom of association and union freedoms had not produced a single conviction against actions by the Government and employers.

The Government's claims that the violence against unionists was simply a product of the armed conflict in Colombia, and that paramilitary groups ceased to exist after the implementation of the law "Justice and Peace", were difficult to believe. Violence against unionists was an organized, focused and continuing effort to destroy the union movement by creating fear. It was not surprising that only four per cent of Colombian workers were organized in a union. One could almost be surprised that four per cent of workers were so courageous that they were willing to put their life at risk in order to stand together with their fellow workers in a just cause.

The authorities implied publicly that the union movement had ties to armed groups, thus making unionists a legitimate target. In May 2009, El Tiempo newspaper reported that the monitoring of assassinated unionists was revealed in the file against former director J. Noguera of the Government's Security Department (DAS). Trade union leaders were convinced their telephones were being tapped. DAS was also responsible for harassing the adviser for Latin America in her own organization, LO-Norway - simply because she was in charge of bonds of solidarity between her organization and the CUT.

She underlined the necessity of confronting the serious violations committed against union members and leaders with a comprehensive and substantial prevention and protection policy. To this end, it was necessary to publicly recognize the legitimacy and democratic nature of union activity and to put an end to statements by the national Government that accused unionists of collaborating with guerrilla groups. The Government had to urgently investigate crimes against union members and identify the intellectual authors so that their links to murders of union leaders and members did not go unpunished.

It was therefore important that the ILO monitored the situation in Colombia and confronted the Government with the serious violations committed against trade union members and leaders. Although the Government publicly announced that Colombia would be discussed as a case of progress, in the face of the increasing number of murders of unionists, the consistent violation of union rights and the almost complete impunity of perpetrators, she expressed the hope that this Committee would not, in good conscience, let this continue without protesting.

The Government member of Nigeria stressed that violence committed against any persons, including trade unionists, was to be deplored. Such violence was capable of driving trade unionists underground and silencing their voices; as made clear by the various worker members who had participated in this discussion, the situation was indeed grave. She stated that it was nevertheless also necessary to recognize the efforts made by the Government, which demonstrated an acknowledgement of the severity of the problems at hand and a willingness to address them. More could have and should still be done by the Government, but there was no doubt that progress had been achieved. She urged the Government to avail itself of the support pledged by the United States, Canada, and the ILO in ameliorating the serious situation still prevailing in the country.

The Worker member of the United States noted that nothing was more essential to Convention No. 87 than the physical integrity of employers and workers. Tragically in 2009, Colombia remained the most dangerous place for workers, accounting for more than 60 per cent of all trade union assassinations worldwide.

While the epicentre at today's debate had been the question of progress, he submitted that there had not been, there was not, and there would never be real progress in this case, unless and until the impunity crisis would be directly, authentically and honestly resolved. This entailed the effective convictions of all the intellectual, as well as the material authors of the violence, achieving the investigative, prosecutorial and judicial capacity to do so; and ensuring that the terms of the convictions were significant and durable. Due to the lack of these essential elements, today one found: (1) that the rate of trade union assassinations jumped 25.6 per cent between 2007 and 2008; (2) already in 2009 at least 17 unionists had been murdered; (3) the impunity rate for murders of the Colombian unionists for the last 23 years was at 96.6 per cent; and (4) considering the acts of violence against Colombian unionists since 1986, including not only homicides, but abductions, assaults and torture, the impunity rate soared at 99.9 per cent.

This was the stark and hard reality that this Committee had to honestly and seriously address, and it existed even in the face of the Government's reports to the Committee of Experts, the budgeting at US$45 million for protective measures, the establishment of three special tribunals tasked with processing the backlog of cases, the monetary rewards of up to US$250,000 for information and the increase of up to 2,166 officials in the Attorney-General's Office. But these measures did not solve the problem and it was no mystery why.

The dominant presumptions in the investigative and prosecutorial system were fundamentally flawed, as documented by the National Union School (ENS) and the Colombian Commission of Jurists. In many cases, the Attorney-General's Office assumed the pretext of the perpetrators, namely that the trade union victim was a guerrilla, linked to the guerrillas or used some other false motive, and the case was disposed of accordingly.

Notwithstanding the millions of dollars invested in the Attorney-General's Office, of the 2,700 unionists murdered in the last 23 years, the special sub-unit had only 1,119 effective files, or 41.3 per cent of the total number of murders, and of these 1,119 files, 645 cases, or 58 per cent, were at the preliminary stage, meaning that there was not even a suspect. Considering the current capacity and the average of 70 sentences a year, it would take the system 37 years to overcome the impunity rates cited and this only on the assumption that there would be no assassinations starting today.

Finally, in approximately 45 per cent of the sentences to date, the defendant was tried in absentia or otherwise not in custody, and the vast majority involved the material, but not the intellectual authors. Scores of the paramilitaries who enrolled under the Justice and Peace Law had abandoned the voluntary deposition process, calculating that the failed justice system would never hold them criminally liable. This meant that they were reorganizing themselves into new gangs of anti-union assassins such as the Nueva Generación Aguilas Metros de Santander or the Commando Carlos Castaño Vive.

The climate of impunity would persist if the mixed messages at the top continued, for example the incontrovertible evidence of elements in the DAS having directly collaborated with the paramilitary assassins of trade unionists, or President Uribe having publicly characterized the recent strike at the sugar cane cutters in the Valle de Cauca as having been mobilized by the FARC. All this reminded the speaker of the ironic words of George Bernard Shaw that progress was impossible without real change and those who could not change their minds about change, could not change anything.

The Government representative of Colombia reiterated his appreciation for the interest with which concerns had been raised and recommendations made with regard to labour rights in Colombia. The Government acknowledged the report submitted by the Committee of Experts, which defined the Colombian case as one in which progress had been made, and which would continue down the path established taking into account the Committee's opinions and recommendations. The Government was firmly convinced that, working together with the ILO and with understanding and cooperation from the international community and enhanced social dialogue between workers, employers, the national Government and regional and local governments, it would be possible to make further progress towards guaranteeing the rights of the working population. In this purpose, he was sure that the Government would be accompanied by the judiciary and the legislature.

In the spirit of collaboration between the branches of Government and anxious to pursue the path of progress, the Government was now followed by the judges of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, the State Council and the Supreme Judicial Council, who have taken note of the suggestions advanced. The speaker stated that, during his visit to Geneva, efforts had been made that had resulted in the negotiation of an agreement between the Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and the International Labour Standards Department of the ILO, to be signed in the next few days, which would undoubtedly lead to stronger collaboration and new opportunities to continue improving the role of the functions of state institutions.

The Government shared the continuing concern of the international community at the violent situation in Colombia, despite the significant progress made thanks to the democratic security policy. Criminal and terrorist activities, the main perpetrators of which were illegal armed groups that were increasingly involved in the drugs trade, continued to threaten Colombian society. Violence and crime affected trade union activities through such serious occurrences as trade unionists being murdered or receiving death threats, but also affected economic activity through entrepreneurs being kidnapped, threatened or murdered.

The speaker echoed the views of various delegations that the problem would remain until Colombia was free of all acts of violence, intolerance and impunity and not a single trade unionist, entrepreneur, journalist, defender of human rights, indigenous person, judge or citizen fell victim to violence. This conviction obliged the Government to take more action, given that security, which was bound up with the fundamental rights to life, liberty and well-being, should be a state policy.

He reiterated his invitation to the international community to continue demanding that illegal armed groups end the absurd violence through which they victimized the Colombian people; to cease inhumane practices such as kidnapping, the use of anti-personnel mines and terrorist acts against the civil population; and to free unconditionally all those whom they had kidnapped. The existence of illegal armed groups could not be justified, whatever their nature or persuasion.

With a view to ending violence and protecting the lives of trade unionists, human rights defenders, entrepreneurs, public servants and other citizens, it was crucial to make progress in fighting impunity, so that no crime passed without investigation or sanction. In any State, crimes that remained unpunished by the judicial authorities became an incentive for criminals to commit new acts of violence. He therefore also reiterated that the Colombian State, together with civil society, should not cease in its efforts to fight impunity and, to that end, to prosecute and punish any criminal practice, whoever its perpetrator.

In that regard, it was very important that the Government, in conjunction with the judicial branch, represented by the Attorney-General's Office, the Higher Judicial Council and the higher courts, should continue to strengthen the special group of magistrates and judges dedicated to investigating cases relating to the murder of trade unionists, which had been created within the framework of the Tripartite Agreement and had led to a qualitative and quantitative improvement in the handing down of sentences by judges, increasing from 12 sentences until 2002 to 190 to date, of which 151 had been given since the signing of the Tripartite Agreement in 2006.

The Government shared the concerns expressed by various delegations to the effect that there were still few investigations and sentences, compared with the number of complaints of murders of trade unionists made over the last 30 years. Today Colombia had become a focus of attention and the progress achieved so far could only serve to stimulate new efforts by the authorities in the fight against violence and to defend trade union activity.

Along with the fight against impunity and violence, in the next few months of 2009 the Government would initiate a programme of economic compensation to victims of violence from an initial fund of more than US$50 million.

In relation to the concerns raised regarding the development of the Tripartite Agreement, the results of the ILO high-level mission, the commitments made by the Ministry of Social Protection during Colombia's voluntary statement to the Conference Committee in 2008 and the technical cooperation programmes supported by the ILO, the speaker stated that, despite gaps, difficulties and challenges to be confronted by the various social actors, it was undeniable that the result of efforts made during the last few years had been positive.

It was important to take more definite steps regarding the ILO's presence in Colombia and related technical cooperation programmes, for example, on employment and vocational training, social security, and signing agreements with the judicial and state authorities to strengthen the fight against impunity and with regional and local authorities on decent work and social dialogue.

With regard to labour rights and guarantees, the speaker underlined the positive results observed since the signing of the Tripartite Agreement, which were the goal of trade union struggles. Among others, he drew attention to the new Strikes Act, which took the power to classify strikes away from the national Government and had been complemented by a recent ruling of the Constitutional Court strengthening protection for that right. He also highlighted a ruling of the Constitutional Court on the autonomy of workers to establish trade unions and their right to be registered by the Ministry of Social Protection without any kind of interference or restriction.

Such achievements demonstrated that, with more dialogue among the social actors in the world of work, more flexible positions and more prudence in making statements, as well as a more objective and realistic approach to the achievements needed, progress could continue in signing and implementing labour agreements. To that end, the fear of agreeing with others should be broken down.

Examples of this were the agreements recently obtained by oil workers regarding closer and more fruitful labour relations; the banana workers' agreement that had allowed a strike in that sector to be brought to an end and that committed workers and entrepreneurs to asking for a better deal from countries that bought Colombian bananas, in terms of both quotas and prices; and the agreement between the Colombian Federation of Educators and the National Ministry of Education, which covered the development of social dialogue and consultation in the public sector, setting out which areas were the subject of agreement and which were not.

The Government, headed by the President of the Republic and the Minister of Social Protection, intended to strengthen a national education and awareness-raising programme on social dialogue, along with policies on labour inspection and mediation, to enable further progress to be made towards better understanding. In that regard, it was hoped that, through the development of the Tripartite Agreement, the ILO, with the cooperation of friendly governments and countries, could promote the development of a wide programme to strengthen the culture and best practices associated with social dialogue, mediation and labour inspection.

The speaker highlighted the constructive spirit that had characterized the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, the Employers' and Workers' group spokespersons, as well as the interventions made by Worker, Employer and Government members on application of and compliance with Convention No. 87 in Colombia.

The speaker reiterated that such dialogue, rooted in a spirit of collaboration, would enable remaining weaknesses and challenges to be overcome and efforts to be improved towards guaranteeing the rights of workers.

In that regard, the speaker invited the Chairperson and the Worker and Employer spokespersons to make the conclusions of the Committee's important examination of the case of Colombia a valuable tool that would enable all social actors in the world of work to contribute to turning the aspirations of the Colombian people - to have a better country, where social dialogue was an expression of the new labour culture and the understanding that Colombia deserved and needed - into a reality.

Before addressing the question of conclusions of this case, the Worker members wished to underline three important points. First, in its report, the Committee of Experts had expressed its satisfaction on a specific point, namely the amendment of section 451 of the Labour Code as a result of the adoption of Act No. 1210 under which the legality or illegality of a collective work suspension or stoppage had to be declared by the judicial authorities in a priority procedure. On each of the remaining points raised, the Committee of Experts requested the Government to act. Second, the trade unions in Colombia acknowledged the efforts made by the Attorney-General's Office and the judiciary, whose attitude had evolved towards a greater sensitivity on these issues, but this could not be said for the Government. Finally, the notion of progress in the framework of the ILO had to meet specific criteria that were set by the Committee of Experts for reasons of legal certainty. The case of Colombia was not a case of progress, given the overall context of this country and in particular the prevailing violence. Too many things remained to be done, as different speakers emphasized. This was not about questioning the comments of the Committee of Experts, as demonstrated by this excerpt from the observation on the application of Convention No. 87 by Colombia: "while appreciating all the measures adopted by the Government, and particularly the increase in funding for the protection of trade union leaders and members, the Committee notes with deep concern the rise in the number of trade union leaders and members who have been murdered".

This said, the Workers recommended the adoption of conclusions based on four points. The first was the strengthening of the Tripartite Agreement signed on 1 June 2006. The implementation of this Agreement had so far not produced the expected results relating to the four priorities it established. All parties had to reaffirm their commitment to implement this Tripartite Agreement, regardless of the existence of divergent views on certain points. This required that legislation be amended in respect of social dialogue and be brought into conformity with the provisions of ILO standards. In addition, a new permanent representative of the ILO in Colombia should be designated as soon as possible, who had to have legal and communication skills and demonstrate a strong commitment to promoting the principles underlying ILO action. In addition, social dialogue had to be strengthened, which required the actual establishment of structures beyond mere technical assistance. In this regard, the Worker members referred to the experience in Africa for the promotion of social dialogue and suggested that a similar exercise be conducted in Colombia. Finally, the fight against impunity had absolutely to be strengthened and it was the commitment of the legislature, and it alone, that would permit the creation of a climate of security, as only the law permitted the finding of permanent and democratic solutions sheltered from change and partisan influence.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for the additional information provided and the commitments made, in particular, with regard to the fund of US$50 million for victims of violence. They noted that the overall high level and measured quality of the discussion had been in keeping with the progress that had been made over a period of years. Most of the Committee's members recognized the progress made. The ability of this Committee to make findings of progress was not limited by the determinations made by the Committee of Experts. This Committee had found in many cases in the past that progress had been made without it being noted by the Committee of Experts. The observations made by the Committee of Experts were of a legal nature while progress in this case had a broader and more pragmatic context. Reference should be made in this regard to the language used by the CFA in Case No. 1787 with respect to progress in fighting impunity. Nobody could deny that there had been improvements in this case in very difficult circumstances. It was indisputable that since 2000, the Government had been taking increasingly strict measures. Overall, it was undeniable that the Government had taken forward steps to end impunity in the country and introduced significant legislative changes.

Prior to 2005, a strategy was followed seeking to punish the Government by words. As from 2005, there had been a clearly different approach involving technical cooperation, legislative and judicial change and social dialogue. The Employer members had listened carefully to the debate especially the leaders of the trade union movement from Colombia and the importance they attached to the 2006 Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy. The Employer members noted that many of the elements of the 2006 Agreement were in place with more to do. These included: (i) the ILO's technical cooperation programme and Bogota office; the USAID Programme on Fundamental Rights at Work; Sweden's bipartite technical cooperation programme; and the Committee for the prior analysis of the cases presented to the CFA; (ii) the increase in investigations, indictments and convictions; and the enhanced protection schemes for trade unionists; (iii) the tripartite National Consultation Commission on Labour and Wages Policies; and (iv) the changes in the legal framework, many of which had been mentioned during the discussion.

Moreover, the Employer members highlighted the commitments made on the part of the Colombian employers by the Employer member of Colombia as well as the invitation made to embark on a constructive attitude to resolve longstanding issues, to assign additional funds to different programmes and institutions in order to continue to achieve compliance with the Convention, and to continue to achieve progress through social dialogue. Furthermore, they stressed their determination to resolve this case.

In conclusion, the Employer members noted that the steps taken in line with the 2006 Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy had led to positive developments and progress in the fight against impunity and human rights protection for trade union members and had led to several positive legislative developments. The Committee should express its support for continued action by the Government so as to take full advantage of ILO technical assistance and rely on social dialogue as the appropriate means to obtain further progress. The steadfast commitment of the social partners should be underlined as a key element in this process. The Committee should emphasize the importance of full and meaningful social dialogue in ensuring a long-lasting environment for freedom of association. The strengthening of the ILO representation in Colombia was needed to facilitate the effective implementation of the Tripartite Agreement. The Committee of Experts should note with considerable interest steps taken by the Government to amend its legislation and recent Constitutional Court rulings in line with Convention No. 87 principles. As regards other issues where the Committee of Experts had said that the Government should continue to take all the necessary measures to guarantee the right to life and safety of trade union leaders and members so as to allow the due exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Convention, the Committee should request the Government to address such issues in consultation with the social partners as well as to provide a detailed report on the above matters for examination at the forthcoming session of the Committee of Experts.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the statement of the Government representative and of the discussion that took place thereafter. The Committee observed the importance placed by all speakers on the 2006 Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy and the calls for a strengthened commitment from all parties to its full and effective implementation.

The Committee noted that the Committee of Experts' comments concerned acts of violence against numerous trade unionists which included murders, disappearances, death threats and a disconcerting situation of impunity.

The Committee noted the Government's indication that it was continuing to work to overcome the factors which gave rise to violence and that, due to the policy of democratic security, the homicide rate had been reduced, in particular with respect to trade unionists. Moreover, the State's activity in combating impunity had been reinforced, including through an increase in financial and human resources, resulting in an increase in convictions for cases of anti-union violence. The Government further referred to a draft law to extend the period for statutory limitation in relation to homicides against trade unionists and to increased sanctions for disrupting or impeding the exercise of the right to organize which was before the Parliament. The Government also provided information in relation to labour matters, including: the adoption of laws to transfer the authority to declare a strike illegal and with respect to compulsory arbitration; as regards measures to strengthen the inspection services and monitoring; on steps taken with respect to associated work cooperatives; and on the consultation and dialogue relating to conditions of work in the public administration.

The Committee expressed its appreciation for the positive steps taken by the Government to strengthen the public prosecutor's office and the resulting progress made in combating violence and the prevailing situation of impunity. It further welcomed the recent information relating to the creation of a compensation fund for victims of violence. The Committee observed the concerns raised that the number of convictions remained very low and that the sentences that had been handed down concerned only the direct perpetrators of the violence, but not the actual instigators. The Committee observed that more measures were needed and expressed the hope that the Government would ensure that the judiciary was invested with all the necessary powers to this end and that further resources would continue to be made available for the bolstered protection of threatened trade unionists, coupled with a clear message at the highest level of the important role played in society by trade unions and that anti-union violence would not be tolerated. The Committee recalled the need to ensure that all investigations against acts of violence against trade union leaders and members were carried out rapidly and efficiently. The Committee underlined that the trade union movement could only exist in a climate free from violence and urged the Government to put an end to the current situation of violence and impunity through the continued implementation and innovation of effective measures and policies.

As regards the legislative questions pending referred to by the Committee of Experts regarding the right to organize of workers in cooperatives, the registration of trade unions, compulsory arbitration, restrictions on federations and other restrictions, the Committee noted that progress had been made in the adoption of new legislation granting the judicial authority the competence to declare the illegality of a strike, which had been previously assigned to the administrative authority. It further observed with interest the Constitutional Court judgement which appeared to ensure a simplified registration process for an improved application of Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee noted, however, the concerns raised in relation to the increased use of cooperatives, service contracts and civil or commercial contracts in a manner which placed obstacles in the way of freedom of association rights of the workers affected by such contracts, as well as the allegations of a generalized anti-union climate.

The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would adopt the necessary measures to bring the legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention in full consultation with the social partners. Observing the commitment expressed by the Government and the social partners in relation to the strengthening of social dialogue within the country, the Committee emphasized the importance of ensuring that this dialogue was thorough and meaningful and encouraged all parties to make concerted efforts so that the existing national tripartite mechanisms could provide a regular forum which inspired the confidence of all concerned. It invited the Government to continue receiving ILO assistance in this regard, as well as with respect to all pending matters. It called upon the Office to review internal administrative matters with a view to continuing the ILO representation in the country and strengthening technical cooperation with a view to the meaningful implementation of the 2006 tripartite agreement. The Committee requested it to report on the steps taken in this regard in its next report to the Committee of Experts due this year.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2008, Publication: 97th ILC session (2008)

A Government representative stated that he had come from Colombia with the intention to share with the Employers, the Workers, the Government representatives and the ILO officials the space provided by the Committee on the Application of Standards in order to discuss a case which, like the case of Colombia, was no doubt a case in progress.

Talking about a case in progress required an objective analysis to be carried out in order to look for mechanisms which would allow progress to be made on the subject that should interest and bring together everyone: the improvement of the labour conditions in Colombia. This exercise made it necessary to recall and face the past, look at and analyse the present and project into the future the efforts that should continue to be made in order to improve on the situation.

The Government representative focused his intervention on the security, the impunity, the labour standards and what he considered a special point, namely the ILO presence and follow-up. These subjects were being analysed from the point of view of the tripartite agreement, recently evaluated by the high-level mission which had visited the country six months ago.

He recalled that each one of the steps achieved in the framework of the agreement should be seen as a triumph in terms of concerted action. But at the same time, it should be recalled that each step forward was a defeat for those who wanted only to exaggerate the problem. He stated that his Government and the ILO believed in dialogue, understood the agreement and the opportunity it represented as a mechanism which allowed the identification of points of divergence, the development of solutions, the building of democracy and assisting development. Tripartism was a real and concrete alternative on which one should bet.

With regard to the issue of security, he indicated that it could not be said that a policy focused and aimed at exterminating the Colombian trade union movement had existed or currently existed in Colombia. What had existed was a generalized problem of violence which had been confronted within the framework of the programme of democratic security. The previous year, five years after the implementation of the programme, the 32,000 violent deaths of the year 2002 had been lowered to 17,198, and the 196 assassinations of persons connected with the trade union movement had been reduced to 26, amounting to a reduction of 86 per cent. This number, he reiterated, continued to be very high and there was an enormous concern that in the first months of this year, the number of deaths had increased in relation to the same months last year.

The speaker referred to the protection programme. In 2000, two years after the Government came to office, the totality of the protection programme in the country had a budget of US$1.7 million for trade unionists, journalists, social and political leaders. In 2007, the programme had 34 million dollars, approximately 30 per cent of which, around 11 million dollars, was allotted to the protection programme for trade unionists.

The second subject which he addressed was a priority objective of the Tripartite Agreement, namely, the fight against impunity and the progress made in this area. He recalled that the Attorney General's Office had created a special unit dedicated solely and exclusively to the investigation of the crimes committed against any person linked to the trade union movement. This unit which had been temporary at first, had been converted the previous year into a permanent unit within the Attorney-General's Office. This special unit had been reinforced the previous year when this same assembly of the ILO, had identified as an important need the promotion of the creation of specialized courts to clear the backlog, devoted solely and exclusively to judging the offences mentioned above. As a result of the above, the magistrates of the country had created three specialized courts to clear the backlog which had led to quick results against impunity, including: 44 convictions during 2007 and 11 during 2008 leading to a total of 103 sentences during the mandate of this Government. This number, which would be seen as small by many people, should be compared to the two judgements handed down in the five years between 1996 and 2001, while during the last year and a half, 55 sentences had been pronounced, 177 persons had been convicted and 117 of them were in prison; and, according to the judges who were independent from the executive, 20 of the 105 sentences handed down so far were related to trade union activities.

However, the efforts related to security and the fight against impunity had been recently reinforced with a system of rewards which would lead to the identification and arrest of the instigators and perpetrators of all the crimes against persons linked to the trade union movement. These rewards had led to important results during the current year with the capture of five persons who were presumed to be responsible for such acts. Moreover, the national Government had tabled a draft law in Congress in order to toughen the penalties against the assassins of members of the trade union movement.

With regard to the labour standards, he mentioned that the previous week, Congress had upon a Government initiative, approved a draft law which transferred to the labour courts the responsibility for declaring strikes illegal in the country. The same draft law provided that the establishment of arbitration tribunals should take place by joint agreement of the parties.

The other project, which should be approved by Congress soon, had to do with associated labour cooperatives. Only some of these cooperatives were abusing the system, due to the lack of clarity of some of the legal provisions. This draft law, developed jointly with the associations of cooperatives was presented upon the initiative of the Government. He considered that the development of cooperatives should not be condemned as being an alternative to development.

Moreover, the Colombian Government had promised Congress that in the next six months it would present a draft law on essential public services.

He recalled that after the Tripartite Agreement, the country had also approved a law which introduced oral proceedings in the labour justice system. These measures which were still in the process of being implemented, would lead to an acceleration of the legal processes for reestablishing and compensating labour rights and would speed up the judicial decisions to ensure their timeliness. In 2008 the construction of more than 100 labour courts in the country had commenced.

Finally, he referred to the decision of the Government to reinforce the inspection and monitoring unit in charge of the implementation of the labour legislation. This measure was of great importance because the annual rate of unemployment had fallen from 20 per cent in 2002 to 11 per cent in 2007. The majority of these workers received benefits from the expansion of the social security system with regard to health, pensions and professional risks in Colombia. For example, in 2002, 55 per cent of Colombians were covered by the health-care system, while at present, around 90 per cent of Colombians were covered and the goal was universal coverage by 2010. In addition, during the coming three years the labour inspectorate would increase by 207 officials, leading to an increase of approximately 30 per cent.

With reference to the presence of the ILO in Colombia, he recalled that since November 2006, the ILO had an office in Colombia. Through this office, the Government had provided more than 4 million dollars of its own funds for the implementation of technical cooperation projects on decent work agreed upon in a tripartite manner.

The follow-up of the ILO Office in Lima, Peru, as well as the permanent and smooth communication with ILO headquarters, had allowed the ILO to play a decisive role in facilitating a constructive process of resolving problems, while helping to find national and international allies in the implementation of the projects at national level.

The high-level mission, which had visited Colombia on behalf of the Director-General Mr Juan Somavia and under the direction of Mr Kari Tapiola and his team, laid the foundations for promoting the identification of a tripartite agenda, and work on this had started within the framework of the National Consultation Commission on Labour and Wages Policies. Subjects like decent work, labour justice and the exercise of freedom of association were included in the tripartite agenda. The Government representative reiterated the Government's will and its conviction on the need to move forward.

The Worker members emphasized that this special examination procedure did not constitute a precedent. There was cause to focus on certain themes covered by the Committee of Experts on the subject of the Tripartite Agreement of 2006. Firstly, as for the militarization of society, the acts of violence against trade union militants and leaders were ongoing. From 1986 to April 2008, 2,669 trade unionists were assassinated, hence one trade unionist every three days. This year, 26 assassinations had already been recorded, including seven teachers, one of whom was pregnant. These trade unionists were killed because of their trade union-related activities and, in most cases, by paramilitary groups that stigmatized the trade union movement as guerrillas or extremist socialist movements. The Government had made efforts to protect trade unionists, but the number of assassinations had not significantly decreased while according to the Committee of Experts the number of people protected had declined. The speaker asked when trade unionists would be able to safely carry out their activities, without bodyguards or bullet-proof vehicles. In addition, 96.8 per cent of trade unionist assassinations remained unpunished. Even if the number of investigations had recently increased, the percentage of those leading to legal action or convictions was considered tiny by the Committee of Experts.

As concerned hindrance to trade union activities, this did not stem only from the climate of violence but also from the legislation and from practices that were contrary to the Convention. In this regard, the Committee of Experts referred to the following: (i) the use of various contractual labour modalities, such as associated labour cooperatives, service contracts or civil or commercial contracts, which, by disguising the labour relationship, deprived workers of trade union rights. Yet, the Committee of Experts recalled that, when workers have to perform work within the framework of the normal activities of the establishment in the context of a relationship of subordination, they must be considered as employees and benefit from trade union rights; (ii) the arbitrary refusal to register new organizations, new statutes or amendments or the executive committee of the organizations. Even if the Government announced that a new resolution was enacted in 2007, the Committee of Experts considered that the administrative authorities still had excessive discretionary power, contrary to Article 2 of the Convention; (iii) the impossibility for federations and confederations, as well as for civil servants, to resort to strikes in a broad range of services not considered to be essential, added to the possibility of dismissing trade union leaders who participated in so-called illegal strikes and the authority of the Ministry of Labour to referring disputes to arbitration. In this regard, the Government adopted a new law regulating the right to strike which took into consideration only one of the nine recommendations of the ILO and allowed the President of the Republic to put an end to a strike. Finally, it was impossible to conduct collective bargaining since, trade unions for civil servants could not present their demands nor conclude collective agreements - a prohibition which extended to civil servants who are not in the administration of the State - and, in the private sector, socalled collective agreements were used to weaken the position of trade union organizations and limit their capacity to conclude a collective agreements.

The Worker members concluded that Colombia continued to clearly and flagrantly violate Convention No. 87. The Tripartite Agreement, concluded in 2006, had not yet borne fruit. Of course, more means had been devoted to the protection of trade unionists, but the number of prosecutions and convictions of trade unionist murderers remained largely insufficient. With regard to fundamental rights and freedoms there was still no significant progress. Social dialogue must be reinforced in practice, and a true indicator of progress would be that collective bargaining be conducted on a more frequent basis in the private and public sectors. The Worker members noted that the ILO permanent representative and technical cooperation programmes were just beginning. International pressure was beneficial, but the results obtained remained insufficient. This pressure had to be applied more firmly and this discussion pursued this objective.

The Employer members thanked the Minister of Social Protection of Colombia for his voluntary presence before the Committee discussed the list of cases and underlined their appreciation for the Government's goodwill expressed to the Committee. Recalling the long history of the supervision by this Committee of the application of freedom of association standards in Colombia, the Employer members noted that during the last five years many positive developments had taken place, although the Government acknowledged that more needed to be done. In February 2000, a direct contacts mission had been sent to Colombia. In 2001, the Governing Body had appointed a Special Representative of the Director-General who had presented three reports to the Governing Body within a year. In 2003, the Governing Body had authorized a costly programme of technical cooperation financed by the ILO, which had lasted until 2006. At the June 2005 Conference, Colombia had agreed to accept a high-level tripartite visit composed of the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the two Vice-Chairpersons of the Committee on the Application of Standards. The high-level tripartite visit had been allowed full access and transparency in its meetings, including with the President of Colombia. On 1 June 2006, a historic Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy had been signed at the International Labour Conference to strengthen the defence of the fundamental rights of workers, their organizations and trade union leaders, especially as concerned the respect of human life, trade union freedom, freedom of association, freedom of speech, collective bargaining, free enterprise for employers, as well as the promotion of decent work. To facilitate the implementation of this Agreement, the Office had established a permanent representation in Colombia and a US$5 million programme of technical cooperation financed by the Colombian Government had been put in place. During the 2007 session of the International Labour Conference, it had been decided to organize a high-level mission to identify the additional needs in order to guarantee the effective implementation of the Agreement and the technical cooperation programme in Colombia. The high-level mission that had gone to Bogotá from 25 to 28 November 2007 had made a very positive report to which there had been no opposing position in the Governing Body.

The main issues raised by the Committee of Experts in this case concerned the situation of violence and impunity and certain legal and legislative matters against the background of several decades of continuous civil war. Since 2001, the level of violence against trade unionists had declined substantially along with the overall rate of homicides. It was important to note that the targets were not only trade unionists but also teachers, judges and other prominent personalities in society. However, everyone had to be concerned about the increase in trade union violence in 2008. The Committee of Experts noted that the protection budget had increased, with over a quarter of it going exclusively to the trade union movement, and that the Colombian central unions acknowledged the increased efforts of the Attorney-General to secure prosecutions and convictions. The Government as a matter of urgency should continue these efforts with the systematic work of prosecutors and judges. The Employer members expressed the hope that these measures would lead to improvements in tackling the situation of impunity.

With regard to the legislative matters raised by the Committee of Experts, one important issue was the inappropriate use of cooperatives, an issue that had been focused upon by the high-level tripartite visit to Colombia in 2005. As the Committee of Experts pointed out, employees in such circumstances should be treated as regular employees with the same terms and conditions of employment and eligibility to join a trade union. The Employer members took note of the proposed 2007 Decree intended to level the playing field on this issue as mentioned by the Government, and asked that it be enacted expeditiously.

With regard to the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerning obstacles to the registration of trade unions and their activities, it was understandable that in the current climate of unrest the Government might wish to ensure that trade union functions did not go beyond normal trade union activities; however, Article 2 of Convention No. 87 clearly required that workers' and employers' organizations should be able to establish themselves without previous authorization. Moreover, keeping in mind that Convention No. 87 provided no express right to strike, note should be taken of the legislation under consideration that would allow the parties to fashion their own dispute resolution process in lieu of the current compulsory arbitration process. Furthermore, substantial resources should be allocated to the judiciary and labour tribunals as well as to the strengthening of labour inspection services. Finally, active steps should be taken to resolve the other issues raised by the Committee of Experts. The Employer members concluded by thanking the Government for its voluntary appearance and expressed the hope that the Government would continue to take steps to improve the situation as it had done in the past.

The Government member of Slovenia, speaking on behalf of Governments of Member States of the European Union as well as Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Iceland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Norway and Turkey, welcomed the Minister of Social Protection of Colombia, and expressed full support and appreciation for the work of the ILO and its permanent Office in Colombia in assisting the country in its efforts to ensure respect for Conventions Nos 87 and 98 through the technical cooperation programme in Colombia.

Although the efforts of the Government to improve the situation should be acknowledged, the level of violence was still far too high and the killing of trade unionists was of great concern. Nevertheless, the willingness of the social partners to cooperate in putting in place the mechanisms for effective implementation of the Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy in Colombia was encouraging.

The measures taken so far by the Government in the fight against impunity should also be welcomed. However, the recommendation of the high-level mission should be stressed once again, to the effect that all cases of violence against trade unionists should be examined and no further backlog accumulated. Therefore, the Government was strongly encouraged to speed up the fight against the very high rate of impunity.

The protection programme for trade unionists should be supported and the Government encouraged to ensure that all trade unionists who so requested enjoyed adequate protective measures which commanded their trust. Finally, the Government was urged to take all necessary steps to amend the legislative provisions, such as the Labour Code, in order to align them with the provisions of Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The speaker called for the continued cooperation of the Government with the ILO, in particular by seeking ILO technical assistance.

Finally, the ILO supervisory system, which was unique in the world, should be supported and this year's procedure should not be considered as a precedent for the future work of the Committee.

A Worker member of Colombia stated that when, on 1 June 2006, the Government, the workers and the employers of his country had signed the Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy, the trade union movement was convinced that this had opened a new avenue to bring an end to the climate of violence and absence of freedom of association which had prevailed for more than a quarter of a century. Unfortunately, the antiunion climate of violence continued, with serious repercussions not only for trade unionism but also for democracy and social rights that were enshrined in the Colom- bian Constitution.

It could not be denied that an outcome of the Tripartite Agreement was the establishment of the special public prosecutor's unit to combat impunity (which was the best ally of anyone seeking to assassinate trade unionists), which had allowed some results to be obtained, even though much remained to be done. At the same time, he was concerned that, as far as 2008 was concerned, the 26 trade unionists killed in five months was far too high a figure for such a short period of time. The Government had to take measures to prevent such a genocide.

It was urgent to find a solution to bring an end to the acts of violence against trade unionists by stopping the Government's and the employers' anti-union conduct and by creating conditions in which the working class could organize freely without fear of losing their life or their job. It should not be forgotten that in many countries trade unions had played a leading role in the struggle against dictatorial regimes and that the return to democracy was due to the sacrifices, determination and altruism of thousands of workers, who, from the ranks of trade unions, did not hesitate to give up their lives so that democracy could prevail.

The speaker appealed to the Government and the employers to turn to freedom, peace and democracy, and to reaffirm the ILO as a key player and a forum for coming together and, that conflicts could be settled if and to the extent there existed political will of the different actors. The best way to discourage the enemies of trade unionism was through the promotion of a real climate of freedom of association and the use of collective bargaining and by ensuring that precarious contracts did not become the rule for workers.

The major concern of the trade union movement lay not only in the fear of losing life, but also in the fear that decent work would vanish. Decent work was at the core of the ILO and the worker's ideology. Unfortunately, the phenomenon of "delabourization" in labour-management relations was a fact and was most often seen in labour relations based on outsourcing, temporary work, civil contracts, service contracts, contracts for very short-terms and finally the scourge of associated labour cooperatives. These cooperatives represented the worst form of aggression against trade unions, as they prevented workers from joining a union and from having access to collective bargaining. It did not seem appropriate, therefore, that the Government had included in the Colombian delegation to the Conference spokespersons for these cooperatives, as they could not represent workers and, even less, trade unionism.

The future held little that was positive if the climate of violence, anti-union conduct and absence of freedom of association prevailed. It was for this reason that he proposed that the Government and the employers of his country fully implement the Tripartite Agreement, as it was the only way of laying a foundation for a new country. He also appealed to the international community to provide all support so that ILO Conventions and Recommendations would not remain a dead letter.

Finally, emphasizing that a democracy without trade unions was only a caricature of a democracy, the speaker stated that the low rate of unionization, the drop in the number of workers covered by collective bargaining, the death of trade unionists, the refusal of the Ministry to recognize new organizations, the increase in informal work relations, the impoverishment of agricultural workers, the fact that more than two million children were child labourers, forced displacement, unemployment and social exclusion all constituted a ticking social bomb which still could be defused.

The Government member of the United States thanked the Government of Colombia for its presentation. The situation of worker and human rights in Colombia had been an issue of long-standing, and at times grave concern in this Committee and the other supervisory bodies of the ILO. The discussion provided an opportunity to take stock of the Government's ongoing commitment to the Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy and the important progress that had been made thus far in implementing the Agreement. The Government of Colombia, thanks in large part to its cooperation with the ILO, had made demonstrable progress in turning around the country's long history of violence and instability and in modernizing and strengthening its legal system. She noted the Government's efforts to protect at-risk individuals, including trade unionists; investigate and prosecute perpetrators of violence; strengthen the judiciary; and bring the legislation into closer conformity with ILO standards. There was a clear focus on making the Government institutions work for the Colombian people, with the result that Colombia was steadily building an increasingly stable, peaceful, inclusive and prosperous democracy. The Government's achievements to date had been acknowledged and welcomed by both the Committee of Experts and the high-level mission. The speaker expressed her confidence that these efforts would continue.

Notwithstanding this impressive progress, it was to be recognized that there was much more to do in what remained a difficult overall situation. Everybody looked forward to a completely secure and peaceful Colombia. To that end, the speaker encouraged the Government to continue working with its tripartite partners and the ILO to address all of the issues that the Committee of Experts had outlined in its observations. These included measures to continue making progress in the reduction of violence and impunity as well as acting on a number of longstanding practical and legislative matters related to trade union rights and activities. As the high-level mission had noted, ongoing and open-ended dialogue and oversight through Colombia's National Consultation Commission on Labour and Wages Policies offered an excellent means for dealing, in an operational way, with the broad agenda of the Tripartite Agreement, while at the same time creating and strengthening trust among the parties. The United States Secretary of State had recently noted that the story of Colombia was a good example of a Government that was trying to do the right things. The speaker expressed confidence that the Government of Colombia would continue to take full advantage of ILO technical assistance in order to continue to do the right things. She urged all the partners to the Tripartite Agreement to remain committed and steadfast to it, however different their views might occasionally be. Colombia had taken great strides forward, and with such a commitment in place, the international community could expect to see even further progress in the near future.

Another Worker member of Colombia stated that the trade union organizations, the employers and the Government of Colombia had concluded a Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy. The agreement had not yet yielded practical results in the improvement of freedoms and fundamental rights at work. All that could be demonstrated was the setting up of a permanent representation, the launching of some cooperation programmes and some initial results from the Public Prosecutor and the judiciary in bringing to light acts of violence against trade unionists and bringing criminals to trial.

The central trade union organizations would present a timetable for achieving compliance with the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies, so that the State could align its legislation and practice with international labour standards. However, the absence of will by employers and the Government would impede meeting this timetable and compliance with the agreement.

The high-level mission of November 2007 recalled that for any tripartite agreement to function efficiently, it was necessary for all parties to stand by their commitments, no matter how different their points of view on specific issues. This meant that the parties had to accept as the basis for discussions, international labour standards and the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies. The mission report highlighted the importance of permanent dialogue and permanent supervision of the application of the Tripartite Agreement in organizing and promoting useful and effective social dialogue.

The ILO could not allow non-compliance with commitments, which in Colombia meant a decent work deficit, limits on freedom of association, murders, impunity and the absence of efficient social dialogue. Moreover, less than one third of workers had access to any social and labour protection, and only five out of 100 workers belonged to a union. In the last five years, the Ministry of Social Protection had refused the registration of 236 new trade unions and only one in 100 workers benefited from a collective agreement. The Government had banned half of all work stoppages, thereby imperilling the right to strike.

Since the beginning of this year, 26 trade unionists had been murdered and four had disappeared, which meant a 71.4 per cent increase over the same period in 2007. In the last 22 years, 2,669 trade union activists had been assassinated and 193 abducted, while the State had only brought 86 of those responsible to face sanctions.

He drew the Committee's attention to the fact that due to the attitude of employers and the Government in refusing to recognize the mechanisms that were put in place and their misuse, this progressively eroded the working methods that had been founded on tripartism and dialogue. It was for this reason that when the Government and the employers were asked for explanations relating to their intentions, it was to help promote dialogue and the exchange of opinions.

He requested the Committee to adopt conclusions and a special paragraph urging the Government and the employers to immediately implement the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies and to align the legislation and practice with Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

Stressing that in Colombia trade unionism was threatened with extinction and its life depended on international solidarity and ILO support, the speaker demanded that the threat to the existence of trade unionism be stopped, through bringing an end to the violence against trade unionists and ensuring respect for ILO Conventions.

The Government member of Canada stated that his Government had been following with keen interest the implementation of the Tripartite Agreement signed in 2006. He commended both the Office and the Government of Colombia for the high-level commitment they had made to move the Agreement forward. The implementation process, he noted, was a delicate and difficult one. It was also urgent, as trade unionists and human rights defenders were still being threatened and often killed. The ILO high-level mission's point that the Agreement lay in the hands of the Colombian Government, workers and employers was a critical one; the ILO had a valuable role but, in the end, it was for the parties themselves to ensure the successful working of the Agreement.

His Government welcomed that Colombia had created, in 2006, a special unit of the Office of the Attorney-General tasked with investigating and prosecuting violent acts against trade unionists. The Government was encouraged to increase its efforts to bring such cases of violence to a conclusion. He concluded by expressing his Government's commitment to supporting Colombia in strengthening its labour legislation for the benefit of workers and promoting an open dialogue amongst the social partners.

Another Worker member of Colombia stated that the denial of trade union freedoms were motivated by an antiunion culture and policy on the part of the employers and the Government, which breached trade union rights through the use of civil contracts, pseudo associated work cooperatives, outsourcing, service provision work and contracts (which were a fraudulent form of work), controlling influence in public entities, and which not only created precarity of employment but also denied the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining.

Resolution No. 0626 of 22 February 2008 of the Ministry of Social Protection not only created obstacles to registration of new trade unions but also delegated to low-level civil servants decisions on union registration, which had negative consequences and were not in conformity with the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association.

It was no incentive to the unions that the negotiations were at such a critical stage for the few collective agreements that existed in the country and for the low rate of coverage. In addition, the practices of public and private employers relied on to use "collective pacts". This was a system of individual membership imposed to the workers by employers when a new union was set up in order to reduce bargaining power.

The Government was continuing to interfere with the right to strike and the new regulations no longer fully guaranteed this right. The only change introduced by the new law was that illegality had to be declared by a judge of first instance and that there was a right to appeal. The ban on federations and confederations exercising their right to strike still applied, making permanent the restrictions noted by the ILO supervisory bodies.

Anti-union violence continued, at least 26 assassinations of trade unionists having taken place in the first five months of 2008 and six others abducted. He denounced the Government practice of determining the motives for the assassinations before beginning the investigation, as this led to erroneous sentences. Two years had passed since the signing of the Tripartite Agreement but it had still not been complied with; a timid start had been made in the field on Public Prosecutor's investigations. Impunity prevailed in 98 per cent of cases and the real instigators were never identified.

The Committee should adopt a special paragraph in order to support Colombian trade unionism's vocation for social dialogue along with a permanent requirement that it should be effective, useful and equitable, so that dialogue would be promoted.

Finally, the speaker noted that the Tripartite Agreement should go further, in view of the social crisis that Colombia was going through, and to that end the ILO Office in Bogotá should be strengthened in order to help bring about a Social Pact which would guarantee decent work through direct negotiations between workers and employers, and which would eliminate intermediaries and all other forms that disguised labour relationship, in order to allow complete freedom of association.

The Worker member of Australia, speaking on behalf of Australian unions and unions in the Asia-Pacific region, noted that the concerns expressed regarding the level of violence in Colombia - which fundamentally impacts upon the lives of workers and trade unionists - were also present with respect to countries in her own region, such as the Philippines, Cambodia and others.

A state of persistent non-compliance characterized Colombian industrial relations and the labour law, particularly as regards the collective bargaining provisions - which excluded public sector workers, workers in the informal economy, those in precarious employment and those considered to be "independent" workers. In fact, the majority of workers simply were not covered by the provisions on collective bargaining. Aside from the widespread violence and intimidation, the Government and the employers were implicated, in other ways, in the creation of an environment where workers' rights were denied or seriously undermined. The problem, in essence, concerned the imbalance of power between the employer and the individual worker, which could only be addressed by effective freedom of association, genuine collective bargaining and a mature system of industrial relations.

Over the last ten years, Australia had witnessed an attempt by its former Government to undermine the role of trade unions and undermine collective bargaining provisions, in the law and in public discourse. It had also used derogatory language to imply that union leaders were not representative, were self-interested, and even "un-Australian". Unions and workers suffered in this environment, as it became more difficult to assert rights in the workplace and undertake collective action, including negotiations with employers or the handling of industrial disputes. This, however, was mild compared to the situation in Colombia over the past years, in which the labelling of trade unionists as "terrorists" directly contributed to an environment of threats and violence. In Australia, trade unionists never feared for their lives as a result of what the Government called them; nor were reasonable employers afraid to deal with them.

The Government of Colombia was pursuing anti-trade union and anti-worker policies in order to achieve its vision of a deregulated, pro-business and pro-multinational economy. The situation in Colombia involved not only the very serious killing of trade unionists, but also the killing of trade unionism itself. Serious efforts were needed to build a culture of negotiation, counter the culture of conflict and violence, and establish genuine social relations that apply to the workplace and are reflected in law. All these would contribute to wider peace building and conflict resolution.

She stated that serious problems persisted in the application of collective bargaining, one aspect of which was the lack of legislative provisions and promotion. Moreover, there were legal and practical barriers to the very existence of unions and their ability to carry out their activities in freedom. In practice, there was clearly a strategy by employers to either prevent new unions from forming or weaken those that existed. Many workers had lost their entitlements, and union coverage stood at less than 5 per cent. Half of the unionized workers were in the public sector, and of those workers, half again were denied the right to bargain collectively, so that the rate of collective bargaining was one of the lowest in the world: only 1 per cent of Colombian workers had recourse to collective negotiations.

According to the Colombian trade union federations, the number of workers covered by collective agreements was declining. In 2007, 463 collective agreements were negotiated, one more than in 2006. Union contracts represented a mere 1 per cent of workers - or 177,000 workers out of a working population of 18 million. At the same time, however, the number of workers covered by "collective accords" increased by 184 per cent. Collective accords with non-unionized workers had been used to undermine the position of trade unions; these agreements, which were imposed by the company on workers via its own nominated mediators, in practice put pressure on workers to renounce their union membership, or at least undermined the effectiveness of genuine trade unions. She remarked that last year one of her colleagues had visited a flower farm that used "collective accords". In discussions with two workers, which took place in the presence of the employer, the workers were unable to provide answers on the working conditions they were supposed to have negotiated. Adding that in many workplaces employers promoted a strong anti-union attitude and simply refused to deal with trade unions, she stated that some felt the labour relationship in Colombia to have been "de-labourized". It was necessary to put an end to collective accords, or "pacts", that were imposed by employers as an alternative to collective agreements.

In 2006, only 11 collective negotiations took place in the public sector - seven of those related to municipal workers, and two to employees of departments. According to Ministry statistics, collective bargaining was undertaken in only 2.74 per cent of the municipalities, which demonstrated how marginal it was in the public sector. Another problem, she added, was the absence of a reliable system for compiling labour statistics. In respect of collective bargaining, there was a lack of credible data regarding the number of collective agreements, the type of agreement, the type of enterprise, the nature of the trade union and the period of validity of the agreement. The administrative and data collection systems were very weak, as a consequence of the lack of priority given to labour administration. These needed strengthening, as it was difficult to build a solid industrial relations system when attention was not paid to the existing realities and there were no means of measuring change or progress, even if the will to promote improvements existed.

It was necessary to ensure the right to collective bargaining throughout the public service and put an end to "associated labour cooperatives", which essentially provided unprotected labour under contracts for services. These cooperatives denied workers their employment rights and their right to trade union membership. The freedom of association rights of all workers, in both the public and private sector, was the basis of a mature and effective industrial relations system; it was the Government's responsibility to implement Convention No. 87 and to create the legislative and political space for genuine industrial relations. She concluded by thanking the Government for appearing before the Committee. She called on the Government to maximize its efforts to ensure respect for freedom of association, and implored both it and the employers to engage constructively with independent and democratic trade unions in Colombia.

The Worker member of Swaziland observed that, just as every coin possessed a head and a tail, so too were there two sides to governance. Good governance, on one hand, thrived on unconditional and inclusive social dialogue. Bad governance, on the other, fed off abuse of power, totalitarianism, self-centredness, arrogance and egocentrism. The latter, moreover, was usually marred by intolerance, violence and an impunity that penalized the victim while protecting the perpetrator.

He reminded the Government that it had voluntarily ratified the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), and was there- fore obliged to enforce its provisions in law and practice. Social dialogue brought together all stakeholders, including the tripartite social partners, to engage collectively in national economic and social policy-making to bring about peace, justice and social progress. He expressed sadness that the Government had disregarded its commitments under Convention No. 144 and, worse, had undermined the Tripartite Agreement to which it itself was a party - even after numerous reminders had been made by different labour organizations. He recalled that the purpose of consultation under Convention No. 144 was not merely the dissemination of information to the social partners. Consultation, rather, entailed dialogue with a view to considering the contributions of the other parties concerned and its outcome ought to duly reflect the input of the social partners. Were it tantamount only to communication from the Government to the social partners it would not constitute genuine dialogue, but rather a monologue. The lack of dialogue was a recipe for disaster and, indeed, it was not surprising, therefore, that in Colombia intolerance and violence reigned supreme.

He called upon the Government to set a proper example in enacting social dialogue. Where social dialogue was not respected at the national level - as reflected in the Government's disregard of Convention No. 144 and the Tripartite Agreement it was a party to - it would be impossible to have a working collective agreement at the shop floor level.

The Government, he declared, was a gross and chronic offender of the Conventions it had ratified. Moreover, it had treated the concerns of the social partners with intolerance and total disregard. He recalled that, according to the jurisprudence of the Committee on Freedom of Association, freedom of association could only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental human rights, and in particular those relating to human life and personal safety, are fully respected and guaranteed. He concluded by calling for the conclusions in the present case to be endorsed in a special paragraph.

The Government member of Argentina declared that the case of Colombia was one of the most regrettable and shameful chapters in ILO history. The annihilation of the trade union movement was part of a systematic plan of repression of organized workers that employed fear, threats and terror to do away with the rights of this social group. He questioned what the State was doing to guarantee public freedoms, taking into account that these were, according to the ILO supervisory bodies, a necessary precondition to ensure freedom of association.

The Committee on Freedom of Association maintained that the cases related to Colombia concerned not only threats, abductions and assassinations but also mass anti-union dismissals, interference in trade union independence, strikes declared illegal and non-compliance with collective agreements, including refusal of the right to bargaining collectively. The sole responsibility for this critical situation fell on the Government and Colombian employers, which neither respected nor took account of the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association to ensure effective application of the Conventions. It was necessary to take urgent action to prevent the situation extending to other Latin American countries, where new winds were blowing and where there were Governments implicated in eliminating hunger, poverty and unemployment.

The progressive deterioration of freedom of association and collective bargaining in Colombia had reduced rates of unionization and bargaining to its lowest levels, which had caused the Committee on Freedom of Association to note in its report that the exercise of trade union freedoms was almost totally blocked. The Workers' Union of the Americas and the Union Coordination Centre for the Southern Cone unconditionally supported the struggle of the workers and trade union organizations of Colombia. Criminals had to be punished. The ILO had to continue with its mission with the aim of the establishment, without hypocrisy, of the fundamental rights and principles that were the basis of peace, democracy and social justice for Colombia.

The Worker member of France wished to discuss the Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy, the signature of which, on 1 June 2006, sparked the hope of real improvement in the situation of trade unionists in Colombia and a genuine commitment of the authorities. Today, this hope gave way to deception and frustration, due to the fact that the Tripartite Agreement did not bring the anticipated results because of its ineffective application. The list of violations to fundamental freedoms, the right to life and the right to strike, as well as of the incidences of interference in trade union activities, remained far too long. The enactment of the Tripartite Agreement, which rested on Conventions Nos 87 and 98, could only be realized through the respect and promotion of these two instruments. Yet, the 26 assassinations of trade unionists, which took place since the beginning of the year, showed that the measures taken by the Government to protect trade unionists and combat impunity were grossly insufficient, if not derisory. These were 26 deaths too many.

The Agreement in question was not a simple unilateral declaration, but rather the result of a compromise binding workers, employers and the Government. Consequently, its enactment implied a concerted, tripartite effort and good faith, all within the framework of genuine social dialogue which presupposed the possibility of constituting free and independent trade unions, able to express their demands and establish a power relationship, such as strikes, in order to defend workers' rights, free of interference and fear for their security. The speaker declared that the existence of such organizations is the testimony of social cohesion and peace and must not depend on the will of a government. Liberal trade unionism, where rights and prerogatives are respected, contributes to strengthening democracy, to transparency and to the rule of law.

The constituents of the ILO, whose presence in Bogota were an essential element in the Tripartite Agreement, were in charge of ensuring the follow-up of that text, by participating actively and in good faith in this vital dialogue, so that it did not become a dead letter. The speaker concluded by pointing out that the workers' representatives clearly expressed themselves and were ready to cooperate.

The Worker member of Brazil expressed solidarity with the Colombian trade union movement. While in a democratic society it was natural that capital and labour came into conflict, it was not natural that such a conflict should produce fatalities. Many governments could not fully understand the nature of this conflict, and the vision that certain Government representatives had presented on the situation in Colombia was cause for concern. For example, the submission of the representative of the US Government did not indicate any concern about the deaths. It almost seemed like the US Government believed that Colombia was a paradise and nothing bad was happening there. Above all, we needed to recognize the problem. It was not useful to hide it. In Colombia, some had recourse to violence and killed trade union activists to prove that democracy could operate without trade unions; that joining a union was not the solution for workers' problems; that workers would lose every single battle they faced against employers and the Government. But democracy did not stop with the election of the President of the Republic by universal suffrage. In a democracy, the right to life and the right to organize and to social dialogue were fundamental. But in Colombia, social dialogue did not exist. We believed there had been some improvements regarding democracy in Latin America but not in Colombia, where murders were used as an attack on democracy. After all, respect for the right to life and strong institutions were the precondition for an effective democracy. We needed to strengthen social dialogue in Latin America. In Brazil, for example, social dialogue had evolved through tripartite forums. It had to be re-established, and democracy and trade union organizations had to be strengthened in order to put an end to assassinations. It was therefore absolutely necessary that the perpetrators of these murders be pursued, brought to justice and convicted. An example had to be made and a change in the climate demonstrated. To this end, a stop had to be put to associating trade unionists with the guerrillas in order to discredit them and thereby give paramilitaries an alibi. Let us stop the killings. Let us praise life.

The Government member of Mexico observed that the Committee of Experts had noted in its report that the overall situation continued to be difficult. Nevertheless, it also recognized that there had been progress, such as, for example, concerning the guarantee to protect trade union leaders, members and offices; the increase in the budget for the programme of protection set up in 1997 and the efforts of the Government to make progress with investigations related to violations of trade union members' hu- man rights. The Colombian Government had reaffirmed its commitment to the Tripartite Agreement, the aim of which was to promote decent work and strengthen the defence of fundamental rights of workers and of trade unions and their leaders in the areas of respect for human life, freedom of association, the right to organize and freedom of expression, collective bargaining and freedom of enterprise.

The result of the high-level mission carried out in November 2007 was not contained in the report as it took place after the meeting of the Committee of Experts. However, in his own report, the Director-General noted the mission's satisfaction with the commitment of the Government and employers' and workers' organizations regarding the application of the Agreement and the budgeting of US$4.7 million by the Government of Colombia to meet the aims of the Agreement; he also made reference to the Bills concerning employment presented recently in Congress.

Finally, the speaker noted that the Government of Mexico recognized the efforts undertaken by the Government of Colombia and that, as the reports mentioned stated, although there were issues pending, it was no less a fact that there was also political will, concrete results and a will continue the work in cooperation with the ILO.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom remarked that, despite the grief felt over the murder of 2,669 trade union colleagues, the context of the present discussion could not be limited solely to the issue of violence. The ILO supervisory bodies had shown that even if there were no violence in the country, Colombia would still be the most anti-union, pro-employer government in Latin America. The violence discussed had no bearing on the Government's failure to bring into conformity with the Convention legislation restricting trade union registration and collective bargaining, or its promotion of "collective pacts" and associated labour cooperatives. Violence had become a smokescreen for the Government's neo-liberal agenda and its disdain for social dialogue. But the State itself was directly and indirectly complicit in anti-union violence.

He recalled that on 6 February and 6 March 2008 protests were held in Colombia and around the world, to demand an end to all violence from wherever it emanates - the paramilitaries, the FARC or the State - and the immediate release of all hostages. Carlos Rodriguez, Miguel Morantes and other colleagues of delegation of the Single Confederation of Workers (CUT), the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) and the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) took part in protests in London, which also called for an end to UK military aid and a strengthening of humanitarian assistance. He stressed that the need to shift from military support to support for the ILO's mandate, as well as for social dialogue and peaceful, equitable development, had become all the more urgent as more politicians linked to President Uribe came under investigation for links with the paramilitaries - the main perpetrators of the anti-union violence. More than 60 politicians were under investigation, including the President's cousin, senior figures in the security service, four provincial governors, and numerous Congress members and senators. Of that number, half were in prison and seven had been convicted. Further, paramilitary leader Salvatore Mancuso had claimed the involvement of the Vice-President, a former Defence Minister and three army generals, among others. He added that the 2006 Jamundi Massacre exemplified army complicity with narcotrafficking paramilitaries. There, High Mountain Battalion soldiers had murdered a US-trained anti-narcotics police squad as they were about to arrest a drugs gang. Such "parapolitica" scandals strengthened the conviction that military aid to the regime should end.

He strongly agreed with the Government of the United Kingdom that it was a flagrant breach of the Convention for Colombian Government figures to smear trade unionists by making public announcements accusing them of being terrorists. Such statements were invitations to the paramilitaries to target the accused. Several of the 26 trade unionists murdered this year - among them seven teacher trade unionists - were killed following the peace demonstration of 6 February, after which José Obdulio Gaviria, senior advisor to President Uribe, claimed that the protests scheduled for March had been convened by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). As the demonstrations - which were supported by the trade unions, the Liberal Party and the Polo Democratico - condemned all violence and demanded the release of FARC-held hostages, that claim was patently untrue. Further examples of "parapolitica" were the scandals in Cordoba University, and Operation Dragon in Cali. Both had been examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association, and he urged all members of the Committee to examine those findings and the unfolding scandal to determine how to react to the Government's unduly optimistic claims.

He underscored that the modest progress made on the still overwhelming impunity resulted largely from international pressure, not least from the Committee itself. Though those gains were small, and with convictions of defendants in absentia and never of the true intellectual authors of the crimes, they demonstrated the need for a strengthened and independent judiciary. Pressure and the careful and regular examination of the present case must not cease. He stated that mature industrial relations anchored in laws compliant with ILO standards were not only a good in their own right, but also showed that differences of interest could be resolved through peaceful negotiation. He called for the conclusions in the present case to include a repeated demand on the Government to desist from the public smearing of trade unionists, as well as a commitment to strengthen the ILO Bogota Office's support for social dialogue, mature industrial relations and the struggle against impunity.

The Worker member of Spain indicated that, in addition to the intolerable level of anti-union violence reached in Colombia, the country suffered from other problems which obstructed the exercise of freedom of association; among them, the problem of trade union registration which restricted trade union activities and the deterioration of the employment relationship because of the abusive use of associated labour cooperatives and other forms of precarious work.

The administrative authority had discretionary power to refuse registration to trade unions if it considered that the organization might devote itself to activities which went beyond normal trade union activities; the Ministry of Social Protection could also refuse it, as in the recent case of the National Transport Trade Union on grounds of absence of an industrial link between the workers and the organization's sector of economic activity. The trade union organizations should have sufficient autonomy so as to be able to organize in the manner which they consider best served their interests and without the need for previous authorization.

Despite the fact that the Committee of Experts had been raising for many years the abuse by Colombia of various types of contractual arrangements in order to avoid the application of labour legislation and obstruct the right to organize and collective bargaining, cooperatives continued to be used as a way to disguise employment relationships. It was a case of clear legal fraud that the conditions of work of the members of cooperatives were worse than those of the enterprises in which they provided their services. Some enterprises dismissed their workers in order to afterwards promote with them an associated labour cooperative. The Government did not apply the criterion of the Committee on Freedom of Association in relation to Article 2 of the Convention, according to which both workers in a relationship of subordination and autonomous workers had the right to establish and join trade unions. A labour relationship which denied fundamental rights to workers was an updated version of age-old servitude.

The speaker proposed, as a result of the above, the adoption of a special paragraph urging the Government of Colombia to bring its legislation into conformity with Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

The Employer member of Colombia indicated that, even if one could have accepted that Colombia was not a viable country in 1998, when the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry had been requested to examine the application of the Convention in Colombia, no one could deny today that Colombia was a different country in which participation of the social partners existed and the judicial system functioned.

He underlined that in 2006 when the Tripartite Agreement had been signed, the belief existed that Colombia could change, and that it had indeed changed. The speaker indicated that the improvements made could be observed in the report of the high-level mission which had visited the country in November 2007 and drew attention in particular to paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 14 and 23 of the report. In fact, it was obvious that the Tripartite Agreement had produced results, which could be observed in the technical cooperation programme under way in the country: this programme had four components, one of which was social dialogue.

Other considerable improvements were the periodical meetings held between the workers, the employers and the Government in the framework of the National Consultation Commission on Labour and Wage Policies and the programme developed with judges and prosecutors.

All this demonstrated that the Tripartite Agreement was dynamic and that it had even greater possibilities of development and action. He underlined the active participation of the Office of the ILO Special Representative in these activities.

With regard to the progress made in the fight against impunity, he emphasized that, through a European-funded programme under way, the Attorney-General's Office, together with the trade union confederations, tried to determine jointly the trade unionists who were the victims of violence. The speaker emphasized that the current statistics submitted by the Attorney-General's Office ensured the transparency of the studies and of the results that had been communicated.

He indicated in particular that, out of the 105 sentences pronounced by the judicial authorities, by virtue of which 177 people had been convicted so far, it had been proven that, according to the statistics mentioned above, in 20 cases the motive behind the violent acts was anti-union violence; one case was due to an accident; one to political activities; one to drug trafficking; five to various factors; 14 to theft; one led to the identification of urban squadrons as the responsible parties; in two, the motives were the collaboration of the victims with paramilitary forces; in 27, the collaboration with the guerrillas; one was due to links with the military; nine to personal motives; 14 to motives which could not be elucidated; and two to violence by the FARC. At the same time, even if one accepted a recent increase in violence, the justice system responded to it and the state institutions functioned.

In this respect, he indicated that by virtue of the policy for the protection and security of democracy, action had been initiated against the guerrillas and the paramilitaries. Fourteen paramilitary chiefs who had recourse to the Justice and Peace Act had been extradited to the United States for not having complied with the provisions of this law. Moreover, decisive blows had recently been inflicted on the guerrillas and this allowed the employers to increase and develop their activities.

The speaker emphasized the wide participation of the opposition in the political life of Colombia. Various local governments and departments were entrusted to representatives of the opposition and members of the trade union movement. These also sat in Congress.

The Employer member described the considerable progress realized by the Colombian economy in recent years: the increase of the GDP and of the per capita wage, the tripling of exports and imports, the reduction of inflation and the fiscal deficit. He also referred to legislative improvements and reiterated the commitment of the employers to join forces with a view to modifying the legislation and bringing it into conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

With regard to judicial proceedings initiated against many members of Congress accused of having ties with the paramilitaries, he added that recently investigations had been initiated with regard to the possible link of some members with the FARC. This demonstrated that justice had been reinforced and that politics were no longer accepted as a means of promoting the objectives of the armed groups. Moreover, measures had been adopted to reinforce the armed forces which were present in all the villages of the country.

With regard to the comments made by the Worker member of Australia, he indicated that a study was recently made within a group of affiliated enterprises of a total turnover representing 20 per cent of GDP, and that according to the results of that study 21.6 per cent of enterprises had enterprise unions and 29.3 per cent had sectoral unions. This was above the national average in other countries.

As for the question of the registration of trade unions, he indicated that, after the adoption of Act No. 584 on this subject, the Constitutional Court handed down a judgement which allowed the existence of more than one trade union by enterprise. This had given rise to abuse since many trade unionists became members of various trade unions in order to obtain trade union immunity and thus, attain employment stability. Thus, it was not a question of lack of good will on behalf of the Government or the employers, but rather a question of putting an end to an abusive practice.

With regard to recruitment, he indicated that the questions raised were similar to those which existed in the rest of the world. Within the ILO as well, discussions had been taking place on the various forms of recruitment and the use of atypical and disguised employment. However, he underlined that direct hiring for an indefinite period of time, was nowadays not the only available avenue.

He concluded by indicating that, in light of the information provided, Colombia had been making concrete progress which permitted to consider this case as a case of progress.

The Worker member of the United States thanked the Colombian Government for appearing before the Committee and stated that there was no legitimate reason for the case being vetoed in last year's session. Such obstructionism fundamentally undermined the raison d'être of the Conference Committee. In his opinion, the veto had been exploited by the Colombian Government and by advocates of the Colombia-US Trade Promotion Agreement, who had asserted that Colombia was no longer subject to ILO scrutiny due to its compliance with fundamental international labour standards. If similar types of distortion are made to the current session, they would be publicly denounced and corrected.

He noted that a conventional wisdom promoted by the Government and advocates of the Colombia-US Free Trade Agreement was that the financial resources expended to combat anti-union violence and impunity had yielded results, with a decline in assassinations between 2006 and 2007. Even if, for the sake of argument, this artificial focus were accepted, the conclusion could be drawn that the murder of trade union activists was not essential in order to destroy trade unionism in Colombia, because, for all intents and purposes, trade unionism was already repressed. In the face of the tragic events to date in 2008, he rejected this focus. As admitted by the Government, 26 trade union activists had been killed to date in 2008, a 71 per cent increase over the same period in 2007. Clearly, even a repressed trade union movement represented too much of a threat to powerful anti-union forces.

As noted in the Committee of Experts' report, and as the Government had declared, millions of dollars had been budgeted and spent on special protection measures, for the Special Sub-Unit in the Attorney-General's, office and on a mere three special judges whose term was limited to six months, as the good Judge Sanchez discovered to his own rude awakening. But no special protection programme would ever succeed unless impunity, now at over 97 per cent for all assassinations from 1986 to the present, was effectively addressed, because the intellectual and material authors of trade union violence are obviously loose and reorganizing, even if we assumed the best of original intentions behind the Justice and Peace Law. Moreover, the public statements from the highest levels of Colombian Government only fed the beast of impunity, for example, Vice-President Santos labelling as guerrillas the three legitimate unionists assassinated in 2004 by the Colombian army.

The Government extolled the over 80 convictions since 2001, but there was a backlog of well over 2,200 trade union member murder cases since 1991, and the convictions to date only applied to 59 cases, and only 22 applied to the over 400 trade union activist assassinations since the present administration took office. Of these 22, 18 were still pending in the courts, subject to appeal and reversal. Of the 187 priority cases agreed to by the Government and the trade union movement in 2006, less than ten had had complete and closed convictions. At this rate, it would require 36 years to overcome impunity on these cases alone. According to the Attorney-General's office, 45 per cent of those convicted were not even in custody. These assassinations would continue unless there was real political will and judicial capacity to eradicate impunity, however much money was spent on personnel of the Attorney-General's office and on bodyguards.

The Government representative of Colombia said that his Government had accepted the session voluntarily with the aim of finding mechanisms which would help to improve the situation and considered that statements which aimed at condemning or absolving, perturbed a constructive process. He said that the deaths brought grief to everyone and that, despite the significant progress, the fight against impunity had to continue. He said that his Government had the support of 86 per cent of the population and referred to the fact that every month and a half, the President of the Republic met with workers, employers and ILO representatives in order to analyse issues raised by the ILO. It would be interesting to ask how many of the Worker members present here had the opportunity to meet the President of their country every month and a half. He insisted that the judicial system was working, proof of which was the independence of the system in the case of the Members of Parliament who had been arrested. He referred to the need to support the persistent and voluntary efforts made in the legislative sphere. without opti- mism or fatalism his Government would maintain his Government maintained its decision to continue improving the situation.

Responding to the statement by the Worker member of the United States, the Government representative rejected the claim according to which, Colombian trade unionism was being repressed. To accept such a claim, in his opinion, was to deny the efforts being made in Colombia by union leaders, such as Carlos Rodriguez, Apecides Alvis and Julio Roberto Gomez. The Government and the workers had gone a long way and had participated in negotiations despite their ideological differences. He quoted a CUT bulletin, the title of which was "The beginning of the end of impunity". He wondered whether the same vehemence would have been used in the past when trade unionists were Ministers of Labour. It seemed to him that seeking confrontation was to overlook 25 years of accumulated impunity. Regarding the Free Trade Agreement, he stated that it had been an election campaign theme of the Government and that the population had voted in favour of it. Alternatives that would allow unionism to revitalize itself in the global economy should not be discarded and that ideological differences were desirable in the face of issues such as, for example, the said free trade agreement. Finally, he noted that the Government had extended an invitation to the American Federation of Labor Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) to take part in the National Coordination Committee.

The Employer members noted that the Colombian Government has appeared voluntarily before the Committee. The Employers stated that this was not a case but a dialogue and, as there was clearly consensus, a special paragraph would be inappropriate. The Employer members had taken a principled approach to addressing the Committee of Experts' observations on Convention No. 87 involving Colombia. During 25 years of discussion in the Conference Committee only limited progress had been made, but, since 2005, substantial progress had been made with the opening of an ILO Bogotá office, a decline in violence, an increase in funding for protection, the judiciary, tribunals and labour inspection. The continuing dialogue was a reflection of this progress.

The picture showed mixed results. There had been progress in difficult circumstances, but, at the same time, and as the Government acknowledged, there was still much to be done. There was clear consensus that the 2006 Tripartite Agreement needed to be fully implemented; there was consensus that more needed to be done with the issues of impunity, cooperatives and other labour law questions. The Government had indicated that more positive developments were forthcoming. The Government's presence had furthered understanding with both the Committee and the global community and provided clarity on the steps needed in going forward.

The Worker members concluded by pointing out that all the elements discussed by the different Worker members remained valid. Two clarifications had to be made concerning the declarations of the Government representative. Firstly, the Worker members did not indicate four or five times that progress has been realized, but rather recognized that slight progress has been accomplished in the functioning of tribunals. Furthermore, as concerns the discussion on the free trade agreement, the Colombian Government did not invite the AFL-CIO, but rather the international trade union movement.

The Worker members recommended that this Committee request the Government to explain why Conventions Nos 87 and 98 were persistently violated in legislation and in practice; in a special paragraph of its report, to immediately put into effect the recommendations formulated by the supervisory bodies; to amend the legislation to recognize the right to strike and guarantee it for all workers, put an end to interference in trade union-related activities and recognize and guarantee the right to organ- ize freely and the right to bargain for all workers, whether in the public or private sectors and in any type of contract; concerning impunity, to intensify its efforts throughout the Ministry of Justice and the judicial authorities and to authorize international experts to ensure that the investigations undertaken are done so in a manner ensuring that the authors of these crimes and their instigators are identified, as well as the potential role of state institutions.

The speaker declared that the Governing Body should take measures to strengthen the Permanent Representation Office of the ILO in Colombia with the presence of experts on the Tripartite Agreement, so as to promote an efficient social dialogue, relevant to the implementation of the recommendations of the supervisory bodies and to the recognition and guarantee of the fundamental rights and freedoms of workers. It should also take measures to ensure the follow-up of the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association.

Finally, the Committee of Experts should request the Government to respect delays in sending reports and to deliver them in the form required by the Governing Body. When examining the application of the Convention, the Committee of Experts should consider the observations that the Colombian trade union organizations systematically send to the Office.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee recalled the steps that had been taken by the Government and the social partners aimed at achieving a greater application of the Convention since the last occasion upon which it had reviewed the Convention's application in 2005. The Committee wished to recall more specifically the tripartite high-level visit to the country in October 2005 at the invitation of the Government and its recommendations, the Colombian Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy of June 2006, the setting up of the Office of the ILO representation in Colombia, and the ILO high-level mission of November 2007 and its report. The Committee considered that all of these initiatives represented initial important steps towards keeping the vital issues relating to the application of this Convention within the central focus of national dialogue and debate. It trusted that additional important steps would be taken, within the framework of respect for the tripartite agreement, to achieve rapid and full application of the provisions of this fundamental Convention.

The Committee noted that the comments of the Committee of Experts referred to continuing acts of violence against trade unionists and a prevailing situation of impunity, but had further observed the significant efforts made by the Government to bolster the special protection programme. The Committee of Experts had also noted the efforts of the Public Prosecutor (Fiscalia General) to secure progress in the investigation of serious human rights violations against trade unionists, as well as the appointment of three judges especially dedicated to hear cases of violence against trade unionists. The Committee took note of the Government's statement relating to the significant increase of funds budgeted for the protection of trade unionists and the continuing decrease in violent murders in the country, including those of trade unionists.

While taking due note of these indications, the Committee expressed its concern over an increase in violent acts against trade unionists in the first half of 2008. In view of the commitments made by the Government and referred to above, the Committee urged it to take further steps to reinforce the available protective measures and to render more efficient and expedient the investigations of murders of trade unionists and the identification of all of its instigators. Such measures should include an enhanced investment of necessary resources in order to combat impunity, including through the nomination of additional judges specifically dedicated to resolving cases of violence against trade unionists. All of these steps were essential elements to ensure that the trade union movement might finally develop and flourish in a climate that was free from violence.

As regards the practical and legislative matters pending, the Committee observed that the Committee of Experts had noted with interest some steps taken by the Government to amend its legislation to bring it in line with the Convention, but had further observed that several other matters still had to be resolved. The Committee noted the Government's statement according to which dialogue was continuing with a view to adopting legislation relating to essential public services and concerning cooperatives and that important measures had been taken to reinforce the labour inspectorate.

The Committee observed that the matters relating to legislative divergences with the provisions of the Convention have been commented upon by the Committee of Experts for many years now and that the efforts thus far made by the Government had not come to fruition. It trusted that the Government would continue to seek the assistance of the Office in addressing all remaining difficulties and that the necessary steps would be taken in the very near future so as to ensure the full and effective application of the Convention in law and in practice. In particular, the Committee expected that legislation would be adopted rapidly so as to ensure that service contracts, other types of contracts, cooperatives and other measures were not used as a means of undermining trade union rights and collective bargaining. It called upon the Government to ensure that all workers, including those in the public service, may form and join the organization of their own choosing, without previous authorization, in accordance with the Convention. In this regard, the Committee called upon the Government not to use discretionary authority to deny trade union registration.

The Committee once again emphasized the importance of full and meaningful social dialogue in ensuring a durable solution to these serious matters. The Committee believed that the strengthening of the ILO representation in Colombia was needed to facilitate the effective implementation of the tripartite agreement. The Committee requested the Government to provide a detailed report, in consultation with the social partners, on all of the above matters for examination at the forthcoming session of the Committee of Experts.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2005, Publication: 93rd ILC session (2005)

A Government representative of Colombia expressed acknowledgement of the valuable cooperation and support received from the ILO, and through it, from the countries which had collaborated in the cooperation programme. International cooperation needed to continue to be a fundamental tool in the relationship between the ILO and Colombia, as reflected in the good results of the Technical Cooperation Programme. His country had always analysed with respect the observations made by the Committee of Experts with a view to the progressive harmonization of the national legislation with the ILO Conventions that it had ratified.

With reference to the situation of violence in his country, he stated that it had been affecting society for a number of decades and that his Government, which shared the general concern, had set the goal of reducing violence. Unfortunately, this moment had not yet arrived and it had not been possible to overcome the problem, although he could announce a sustained trend of a decrease in violence. In 2002, nearly 29,000 homicides had been recorded; in 2004, there were 20,000, which amounted to a decrease of 30.61 per cent. In the specific case of labour union leaders, whereas in 2002, unfortunately 205 had been murdered, in 2004 the number of murdered trade unionists had been 89, representing a reduction of 56.58 per cent. If this trend for the reduction of violence continued, by the end of the present year, there would be 15,000 homicides, representing a reduction of nearly 50 per cent in relation to the year when the present Government took office.

The direct contacts mission which visited the country in 2000 had indicated that the Colombian State was not implementing in any form a policy to exterminate any group of society. It was illegal armed groups and drug traffickers who were responsible for the murders, kidnappings and threats against trade unionists, mayors, journalists, religious leaders, counsellors, indigenous peoples, teachers, soldiers, judges, business people, traders and various personalities in national public life. In some cases, even though they were minimal, officials of the current State, acting on an individual basis, had committed abuses. In such cases, the Government had sought to clarify the facts and impose appropriate penalties. The violent death of even one person was enough for the Government to pursue its action to strengthen state measures to guarantee the life of its citizens including, very specially, trade union leaders and members.

The efforts made by the current Government to protect vulnerable groups were not confined to the democratic security policy, but also included the Protection Programme, under the responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice. He indicated in this respect that over 70 per cent of the nearly 40 million dollars from the national budget for the period 2002-04 had been allocated for the protection of trade union leaders.

According to the report of the National Prosecutor's Office for the period 2002-04 on cases currently under investigation for offences of homicide, in which the victim was associated with a labour union, there had been 36 preventive detentions, 21 charges, four sentences and 131 investigations, which amounted to significant progress in comparison with ten years ago.

To this needed to be added the effort made by the Government to respond, in an increasingly broad, detailed and appropriate manner, to the allegations made to the Committee on Freedom of Association, as recognized by trade union groups themselves. Between 1993 and 2003, these allegations had been related almost exclusively to the murder of trade unionists. Now, the new allegations covered other types of attitudes relating to the exercise of trade union rights, which constituted progress.

He said that it would be an enormous mistake not to acknowledge the problem, just as it would be an enormous mistake to ignore the efforts and achievements that were little by little being made by his country in this respect. He therefore considered that Colombia could be deemed to be a country of progress, even though certain problems persisted, which were in the process of being resolved. If a solution were to be found, three simultaneous elements were required, namely, time, resources and political will. And he reaffirmed the political will of the Government.

With regard to the efforts to combat impunity, he said that there were already detainees and four persons had been convicted. A new system of bringing criminal charges had recently been established in the country, with emphasis on oral procedures and which, combined with the strengthening of the National Prosecutor's Office, would ensure that investigations were more efficient and more effective.

He then referred to the process of legislative amendment, which was a time-taking process, and to the differences between the national legislation and Convention No. 87. He said that the process of legislative reform had taken time and had merited its acknowledgement by the Committee of Experts. At the beginning of the 1990s, a high number of amendments had been made to the legislation and the country had been acknowledged to be a case of notable progress, as indicated in the 1994 General Survey of the Committee of Experts. In its report in 2001, the Committee of Experts had noted with satisfaction the measures taken by Colombia, which had taken into account ten comments made by the Committee of Experts. Of those, there were now currently three, which was lower than average for the countries mentioned in the report.

He indicated in this respect that he challenged the comments relating to the prohibition upon federations and confederations calling strikes. The Government had explained that the Colombian system of freedom of association, the right to organize and collective bargaining was structured around enterprise unions, to which all the inherent attributions of freedom of association and the rights deriving from Convention No. 87 had been granted. His Government considered that this system was entirely valid, was not in violation of Convention No. 87 and permitted better levels of negotiation and social dialogue. His country did not admit that such a limitation constituted a denial of freedom of association and the right to organize.

Secondly, the Committee of Experts had made comments concerning the prohibition of strikes in services the interruption of which could endanger the life, safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and the possibility to dismiss trade union leaders who had intervened or participated in an illegal strike. He recalled that the right to strike was enshrined in the Constitution of his country, with the sole exception of essential public services. Under the Colombian legal system, the concept of public service related to those services provided by the State directly or through private entities, regularly or continuously, to cater for the needs of the population and in which the public interest was implicit.

With regard to the possibility envisaged in the law to dismiss workers who participated in collective stoppages which had been declared unlawful, he emphasized that the legislation established requirements and procedures that had to be complied with by workers and employers before calling a strike. Whenever reference was made to an unlawful strike, this did not constitute any limitation on the right to strike, but referred to situations in which the clearly established requirements had not been complied with and which could not therefore receive legal recognition, as they did not stricto sensu fit the concept of a strike.

He added that all the efforts referred to had to be accompanied by the generation of more jobs. In this respect, he indicated that the growth rate of the economy in recent years had been around 4 per cent, which had resulted in the creation of more jobs and a decrease in the unemployment rate over the past two years.

He emphasized the role played by the ILO in promoting social dialogue and expressed gratitude to the Office for its contribution in this field. He called upon trade union leaders and employers to join together in endeavouring to take advantage of the legal areas available to them under the Constitution and to leave aside all types of pressure, both internal and external, intended to polarize relations between them. He added that it was not desirable for a multiplicity of organizations which were not representative of workers to be ruining the reputation of Colombia.

In conclusion, he called for social dialogue to become a crucial instrument through which the ILO and the countries which had demonstrated their concern at the situation in Colombia could contribute in a positive manner to the continuation of the Technical Cooperation Programme approved by the Governing Body in March 2005. He recalled that his country needed time and resources to make progress and he hoped that, encouraged by the results achieved, the international community would provide assistance through the ILO.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative of Colombia for the information provided. They pointed out that the case of Colombia was taking place in a context of civil war and all-pervasive violence which was affecting everyone throughout society, including the Government, employers' organizations and trade unions. The Committee of Experts had indicated on numerous occasions that employer's organizations and trade unions could only operate effectively in a climate of peace and respect for fundamental human rights. However, the problems in Colombia were of a very deep-rooted societal nature. They were placed in perspective by the fact that the financing provided by the drug cartels to the FARC and the paramilitary was even higher than the national budget. The Committee was therefore faced with a conundrum: there could not be any freedom of association in a climate of violence. However, this did not mean that freedom of association would end the violence. Even if the provisions of the labour law met the requirements of Convention No. 87, this was not going to solve the societal issues at stake. This was true for all the three issues relating to freedom of association and the right to strike which were currently being examined by the Conference Committee. Nevertheless, the Employer members emphasized that the violence in Colombia remained unacceptable and undermined the right to freedom of association. If such violence was to be ended, it was important for democratic institutions to be strengthened, and the Government was making efforts to this end.

They noted, in this context, that the issues raised by the Committee of Experts mainly related to the right to strike and that there was no need to deal with them in detail as the Employer's position in this regard was very well-known and had been clearly indicated in the context of the application of Convention No. 87 by Guatemala.

In conclusion, the Employer members believed that the Committee should draw the following conclusions on this case. Firstly, it was fundamental for freedom of association in the country that the Government did everything to end the violence. Secondly, the ILO technical cooperation programme, which had resulted in some progress, should be continued and enhanced. There was, however, a need for more information to be provided on the tangible results achieved through this Technical Cooperation Programme, which they would comment on further in their conclusion to the discussion of the case.

The Worker members indicated that in Colombia approximately 5 per cent of the active population was affiliated to a trade union and less than 1 per cent was covered by a collective agreement. This situation was the result of laws, measures and practices that were hostile to the right to organize. The percentages had been plummeting in recent years for the following reasons: firstly, the legal guarantees that permitted the exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining were still not in conformity with Convention No. 87, as frequently emphasized by the Committee of Experts; secondly, the decisions of the three powers flouted the provisions of this Convention. Finally, in practice, a series of factors gave rise to the enormous difficulty of implementing the Convention.

They recalled that the Committee of Experts emphasized four issues in its report. These included the prohibition on the calling of strikes by federations and confederations; the prohibition of strikes in services which were not necessarily essential in the strict sense of the term, particularly as in case of the workers of ECOPETROL; the discretion of the Minister of Social Protection to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike exceeded a period longer than one year; and the procedures for registering trade unions and the excessive use made by the authorities of their powers to evaluate subscriptions. They reminded the Government firmly of the need to put into practice its proposal made to the Conference Committee the previous year, namely to discuss this matter with the ILO to find a solution. However, another year had gone by and nothing had been done. They further recalled that the Committee had asked the Government in its conclusions of 2004 to supply information on the points to which it had not replied in its report.

The Worker members recalled in the first place the statements made by the Worker members at the Committee's previous session according to which the rights of workers, in particular trade union rights, which were guaranteed by the national legislation were not respected in the context of the merger, liquidation or restructuring of public or private services. Workers' organizations were generally informed of the restructuring on the day it took place. Workers and trade union leaders were dismissed summarily and there was no prior consultation with the unions. The new entities created after such mergers or restructuring usually hired the same persons, but without collective agreements, which were not renewed, and based on arrangements under which the implementation of the provisions of Convention No. 87 was impossible, as the recruitment of workers was carried out by temporary employment agencies or more often through associated labour cooperatives. And yet, it was an enshrined ILO principle, contained in Recommendation No. 193, that cooperatives should not be established or used for the purposes of undermining labour legislation, establishing disguised employment relations or violating the rights of workers through the establishment of pseudo-cooperatives. A large number of enterprises and institutions had undergone this process, including TELECOM, Bancafé and other enterprises related to the social security system, including hospitals. What made the situation even more serious was that it did not consist of a few isolated events. The combination of these practices amounted to an intent to eliminate freedom of association and the related rights. In a clearly planned manner and in response to agreements signed with the World Bank and the IMF, the same scenario was repeated time and again: trade unions were not consulted, measures were adopted on a de facto basis and the powers were used to achieve this end, based on a total denial of trade union rights.

The Worker members added that policies to promote flexible labour rights in recent years had led to a sharp increase in unemployment and employment in the informal economy. To address this situation, the CGT had sought authorization at its congress to proceed with the direct affiliation of workers, but this had been categorically denied. The Worker members emphasized the aggravation of violence, with 174 cases of murders or death threats against trade union leaders between January and April 2004, as well as searches of union premises, arbitrary detentions and kidnappings. This figure had risen to 214 over the same period in 2005, to which the deaths of at least another three trade union leaders should be added, bringing the total number of murders this year to 19. The arbitrary detention of trade unionists, which was on the rise, demonstrated that trade union activities were being criminalized while the murderers of trade unionists remained free. Although there were programmes to protect trade unionists, they needed to be combined with action to identify the perpetrators of threats against unionists. The Worker members denounced the silence of the Government on these cases and the lack of action to investigate them and punish those responsible.

The Worker members also referred to the solidarity missions that had been undertaken by ORIT and the international occupational federations which had tried to visit Colombia, without success, as entry into the country had been refused. They therefore requested explanations from the Government on this subject. Other missions had been able to visit the Colombian authorities, and meet the President, who had confirmed the willingness to enter into dialogue, but who, paradoxically, had insisted on the need for more participative trade unions which were less demanding. Yet, the very essence of trade unions was to ensure the protection of workers' rights through the organization of their activities and the formulation of their programmes of action, which were principally based on the advancement of their claims. They also expressed astonishment that the authorities should give voice to criteria concerning the type of trade union movement that they wished to see, which constituted interference in matters that were normally the sole responsibility of trade unions.

In conclusion, the Worker members emphasized the gravity and continued deterioration in the situation with regard to freedom of association and the right to organize in Colombia. The problems raised by the Committee of Experts in relation to the incompatibility of national law and practice with the provisions of the Convention and the persistence of a climate of violence were aggravated by specific events which demonstrated that the authorities did not support social dialogue and did not really wish to have trade unions, or only trade unions which were essentially participative. Such a situation was the antithesis of decent work and a denial of international law. It could only give rise to higher levels of under employment, unemployment, social exclusion, poverty and violence. And it had to be recognized that violence, in all its forms, and without wishing to justify it in any way, was deeply rooted in the absence of social justice. Freedom of association was a pillar of decent work and social justice. Laws and practices which ran counter to it would only sow the seeds of injustice and strengthen the vicious circle of violence.

A Worker member of Colombia said that trade unionists in his country were concerned by the actions of the Government and the employers to diminish the influence of ILO standards and its supervisory bodies. With regard to violations of trade union rights in his country, he said that the three trade union federations had provided information to the ILO Governing Body and the Committee on Freedom of Association. Although the Constitution of Colombia provided that duly ratified international labour Conventions formed part of internal law, the destruction of Colombian trade unionism was continuing. He referred to various events which violated trade union rights: (1) the dismissal of 3,400 workers from Banco Cafetero with a view to putting an end to the trade union and collective bargaining; (2) the declaration of the strike by workers at ECOPETROL as being unlawful and the subsequent dismissal of 247 workers; and (3) the dismissal of workers from state institutions (such as TELECOM, the Social Insurance Institute, hospitals, etc.) in which trade unions were in operation and collective labour agreements had been negotiated, only for them to be hired on temporary contracts for the provision of services, administrative or civil law contracts, or through cooperatives or other arrangements.

With regard to the violation of human rights, he added that trade union leaders and activists in the CUT continued to suffer various types of aggression. In 2004, 17 leaders and 71 trade union members had been assassinated, while in 2005, two leaders and 17 members had been murdered. This showed the continued policy to exterminate trade union members of CUT. The sector which had been most affected by acts of violence was education and, to a lesser extent, health workers. Nevertheless, death threats were on the increase for all trade unionists, as could be seen in the municipal enterprises of Cali. Finally, he indicated that the situation in Colombia continued to be very serious and called for the State to be urged to punish acts that violated freedom of association and the right to organize and for the necessary measures to be taken to prevent anti-union activities. He called upon the Government to give effect to the recommendations made by the ILO supervisory bodies, particularly those of the Committee on Freedom of Association. He urged the Government to strengthen the programme of protection for trade union leaders and requested the ILO to maintain and improve the Technical Cooperation Programme with Colombia. He also urged the ILO to organize a tripartite mission to Colombia as soon as possible. Finally, he called for the case of Colombia to be included in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

Another Worker member of Colombia said that for years both the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee had been urging the Government to take measures to bring the labour legislation and practice into full conformity with the Conventions on freedom of association. The discrepancies concerned the following provisions: the prohibition of the right to strike for federations and confederations (section 417 (i) of the Labour Code); the prohibition on strikes in non-essential service sectors (section 450 of the Labour Code); the power of the Minister of Social Protection to submit a dispute to arbitration in the event a strike lasting longer than a certain period (section 448, paragraph 4, of the Labour Code); the dismissal of trade union leaders for participating in strikes (section 450 of the Labour Code); declaring a strike illegal by the administrative rather than by the judicial or independent authorities; the denial of the right to collective bargaining for public servants and at the branch level; and the difficulties in the process of trade union registration.

He considered that the above facts were evidence of the persistence of violations of the right to freedom of association despite the Government of Colombia's repeated commitments to take measures to ensure that workers enjoyed the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining. The political and legal arguments to justify restrictions on freedom of association put forward by the Government and employers were evidence of a strategy to eliminate trade unionism in Colombia, the motto of which appeared to be "labour relations without trade unions or collective bargaining".

He stated that it was obvious that the creation of trade unions was being restricted. During the 1990s, an average of 88 trade unions had been established every year, compared with 104 in 2000 and 2001, 11 in 2003 and 6 in 2004. Some 40,000 trade union affiliates had been lost in the public and private sectors during the two-and-a-half year period of President Uribe's Government. Out of a total working population of 18 million people, fewer than 80,000 workers a year were covered by collective agreements. Employers used bribes to sign agreements with non-unionized workers and the Government simulated the liquidation of enterprises with a view to eliminating unions, collective bargaining and the immunity of union leaders. There were other acts that violated freedom of association, such as the case of the Agrarian Fund, TELECOM, Bancafé and Adpostal. The direct withdrawal by the administrative authorities of the legal authorization for trade unions to operate at the request of employers was an anti-union practice by the Government and the employers which supported it.

The prohibition of the right to strike was another violation in Colombia as in the case of the strike by the USO trade union in ECOPETROL, the purpose of which was to defend the national heritage and national sovereignty, but which was declared illegal by the Government, leading to the dismissal of 248 workers, including 26 trade union leaders, and the failure to comply with the court ruling previously agreed to by the parties. He therefore called for the case to be included in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

Another Worker member of Colombia expressed his disappointment at the contrast between the expressions of good will provided by the Government representative and the situation in practice, particularly since the possibility of the way ever being open for trade union activities in his country was increasingly distant. Speaking of freedom of association in Colombia was like speaking of something exotic, because this fundamental right that was inherent to democracy was denied. He said that the ritual of the Conference Committee, which had now been repeated for over 20 years in this case, had not resulted in a way being found to resolve a conflict affecting an economically active population of 22 million people, of whom 4 million were without employment, 10 million were in the informal economy and the great majority had no stable work.

Trade unionism in his country was brutally affected on two sides: firstly, the practice of grave violations of Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 151 and 154, inter alia, affected the stability of trade unionism through murders, forced exiles, threats and intimidation. He referred to the incident in Arauca where three trade union leaders had been assassinated. He drew the Committee's attention to the fact that, for the neo-liberals and advocates of capitalist globalization, the best trade union was one which did not exist.

Moreover, the imposition of labour cooperatives, as practised in the private and public sectors, temporary contracts, subcontracting, the hiring of parallel staff on civil contracts and the constant challenges to an appropriate relationship between capital and labour all provided grounds demonstrating the urgency of reactivating the Ministry of Labour, which had now been merged with the Ministry of Health under the title of Ministry of Social Protection, and which had been converted into a new menace for trade unionism. It could not be understood that in his country there was no longer a Ministry of Labour to guarantee proper relations between capital and labour. For example, situations had occurred in which the Minister of Communication herself had convened workers in hotels to place them under pressure so that they would accept voluntary retirement plans, thereby denying collective bargaining.

He affirmed that his country needed a Ministry of Labour that was serious, dynamic, respectful of national and international standards, with the strengthening of labour inspection to prevent unlawful measures against workers.

He expressed deep concern with regard to freedom of association and the workers employed by TELECOM, whose enterprise had not only been militarized, but who had been dismissed and their trade union abolished, and whose entitlement to retirement pensions had even been denied by the instructions of the Ministry of the Interior. Around 2,000 workers were at risk of losing the benefits of over 25 years' service for the State. The new TELECOM refused to comply with the orders issued by judges in his country who favoured the workers, especially mothers who were heads of families and the disabled. He called for the Labour Code, the Constitution and ILO Conventions and Recommendations to be complied with. Finally, he said that the workers and trade unions in his country were calling for assistance so that they could merely continue to exist.

The Government member of Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and for the Government members of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Norway, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine , supported Colombia's efforts to bring about justice, social advancement and national reconciliation and to fight against impunity and human rights violations. In this context, she welcomed the recent ratification by Colombia of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182). However, she pointed out that the situation of trade union rights in Colombia had been the subject of comments by the Committee of Experts for many years and had been before the Conference Committee a number of times. It had also been the subject of numerous complaints examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association. She indicated that while the EU recognized the Government's efforts to increase protective measures aimed at ensuring the security of trade union leaders and trade union premises, it nevertheless expressed grave concern at the continuous high levels of violence and the climate of impunity, in which such acts of violence continued to occur. As the United Nations Commission of Human Rights had recently noted, trade unionists continued to be among the most targeted groups. She stated that the EU strongly condemned the murders and kidnappings of trade unionists and other vulnerable groups, mainly perpetrated in 2004 by illegal armed groups. The EU expected the Government to secure the right to life and security and to address the issue of impunity, which continued to be a major obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights in Colombia. She called upon the Government to make full use of the advisory services and technical assistance of the ILO in order to strengthen democracy and enhance the rule of law in the country, in accordance with the intention expressed at the highest level of the Colombian State during previous meetings of the Government Body.

Finally, the speaker stated that the EU regretted that the lack of progress with regard to certain legislation impeded the full exercise and development of trade union activities. The EU remained concerned, among other matters, at the prohibition of strike action in a wide range of sectors which were not essential services, but which were nevertheless defined as such under Colombian law. The speaker emphasized the importance of social dialogue and called on the Government of Colombia to take resolute action to bring its national law and practice into line with the requirements of the Convention.

The Worker member of France referred to a meeting held on 16 September 2004 between the President of Colombia, Mr. Uribe, and a trade union delegation headed by the General Secretaries of the ICFTU and the WCL, Mr. Guy Ryder and Mr. Willis Thys, in which she had participated representing her trade union organization Force ouvrière. During this meeting, President Uribe had indicated that, in his opinion, Colombian trade unionism was too assertive and not sufficiently participative, or in other words trade unions did not have an entrepreneurial attitude. According to the President, Colombian trade unionism had to change because trade unions were using archaic methods which were bound to disappear in the modern world. In this regard, she indicated that President Uribe's attitude was a matter of grave concern. Indeed, the principle of non-interference by the public authorities in freedom of association was the basis of Convention No. 87. However, it seemed that Mr. Uribe, in contrast, considered that it was normal for a President to define the nature of trade unionism in his country. This attitude did not seem to him to be a violation of Convention No. 87.

By way of illustration, she cited the following passages of a letter sent by the President of Colombia to the President of the enterprise ECOPETROL: "By the present letter, I would like to express warm thanks and congratulations to you as President of ECOPETROL and to all the directors and workers of the enterprise for having completed the process of negotiation with USO ... This process, with the full support of the law and constitutional guarantees, is an example for the whole country. In Colombia we need to create a culture of participative rather than assertive trade unionism. "

The fact that the Convention No 87 was violated by the President himself explained the present situation in Colombia, particularly with regard to the adoption of legislative provisions and legal procedures. These were systematically intended to bring an end to a certain type of trade unionism, namely "assertive" trade unionism. This was the case with the policy to promote a particular type of cooperative, which not only denied power to workers in the enterprise, but were also accompanied by the prohibition of the right to organize. It was also the case with the policy to promote "union contracts", which were intended to transform trade unions into temporary work agencies and to bring an end rapidly to their role of representing workers. It was also the case of all the economic reforms which had seriously weakened or put an end to the right of collective bargaining, such as the pensions reform. Unfortunately, this policy had already borne fruit. Between 2001 and 2004, the number of trade unions created annually had dropped from 140 to six. The numbers spoke for themselves. This policy of the denigration of free trade unions was accompanied by precise vocabulary used in the public speeches by President Uribe. Indeed, he systematically tried to associate free trade unions, or "assertive" unions, with rebellion and guerrilla warfare.

With regard to the assassination on 4 August 2004 of three trade unionists by the armed forces in the region of Arauca, President Uribe had indicated during the meeting on 16 September 2004 that the victims had been members of the guerrilla forces. It even appeared that the Public Prosecutor's Office had recognized that they were trade unionists. The will of the President to bring an end to free trade unionism explained the general climate of violence towards trade unions. Furthermore, this policy was supported by the employers. In this regard, the speaker indicated that during the meeting on 16 September 2004 with the Vice-President of the National Association of Industries (ANDI), Mr. Echavarria, he had expressed the same point of view as President Uribe, indicating that Colombian trade unions were too "assertive" and not sufficiently "participative". This showed that in Colombia the political and economic powers only accepted social dialogue on condition that the social partners were obedient and discreet. They were not prepared to breathe life into the basic principles of democracy.

The intimidation of Colombian trade unionists was so serious that it even went beyond the borders of Colombia. Trade unionists who had also participated in the meeting of 16 September 2004 had been identified by the Government and were now being prevented from carrying out their international trade union activities freely. On 3 November 2004, the trade unionists Victor Baez, Secretary-General of ORITICFTU, Rodolfo Benitez, Secretary-General of UNI America, Antonio Rodriguez, Secretary-General of ITF America, and Cameron Duncan, Secretary-General of ISP America, had been turned back at Bogotá airport. It could therefore be concluded that their names were on a blacklist. This situation was of grave concern. The speaker added that she had not returned to Colombia since September 2004 and feared to do so. As she had participated in the meeting with President Uribe, she supposed that her name was also on a blacklist. The intimidation had nothing to do with the war that was being waged in Colombia. The mere fact of being a free trade unionist supporting free trade unionism in Colombia raised fears for her safety.

Everyone was entitled to their personal opinion on what trade unions should be in their country. Some might even desire in their innermost selves that trade unions were less assertive. However, it was recognized that interference by the public authorities in trade union activities was a violation of Convention No. 87. The definition of what trade unions should be was a task that was the responsibility of the workers and the workers alone. Any vision to the contrary could lead, as in the case of Colombia and elsewhere, to the worst abuses and atrocities. In conclusion, she called on the Committee to convey this message with as much clarity and firmness as possible to the Government of Colombia.

The Government member of the United States said that, in its observation, the Committee of Experts had noted with grave concern the persistent climate of violence in Colombia and the situation of impunity that contributed to it, which prevented the free and effective exercise of trade union rights guaranteed in Convention No. 87. Her Government shared this concern and she pointed out that, although the number of murders had declined, the level of violence and threats of violence was still too high, while the number of convictions of the perpetrators of these acts was unacceptably low.

She added that freedom of association was critical if Colombia were to move successfully towards peace, social justice, reconciliation and democracy. While acknowledging the steps that the Government had taken, she emphasized that the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association had often recalled that workers' and employers' organizations could only exercise their activities effectively in a climate free of violence and the threat of violence. She, therefore, urged the Government to continue to take full advantage of the ILO's Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia to reinforce protection measures for trade unionists. She called upon the Government to make greater efforts to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the violence that had claimed so many lives. Finally, she encouraged the Government to move forward with the labour law reforms recommended by the Committee of Experts so as to bring the country's laws fully in line with the provisions of the Convention.

The Worker member of Chile referred to various violations of Convention No. 87. The strike that had been called in April 2004 by the trade union USO had been declared illegal by the Minister of Social Protection under the pretext that the oil industry was an essential public service. Declaring the strike illegal had led to the dismissal of 247 union members, under section 450 of the Labour Code. In the case of 106 of these workers, whose reintegration had been ordered by a voluntary arbitration tribunal, a new trial had been initiated. Furthermore, over 1,000 disciplinary procedures had been set in motion to punish workers for exercising their right to strike. He also referred to the administrative decision which had led to the closure of Bancafé and the hospitals and clinics of state social enterprises. He emphasized that such arbitrary action without consultation had led to the destruction of two large union organizations and the violation of labour rights and collective agreements.

He said that union persecution was demonstrated by the discovery in August 2004 of "Operation Dragon", when a lieutenant colonel of the Colombian army, military registry No. 7217167, was arrested and found in possession of documents on the activities of SINTRAEMCALI and information on operation dragon plans for the extra-judicial assassination of the president of the union, Luis Hernandez Monroy, its legal adviser Berenice Celeyta and the leader Alexander Lopez, among others. It was also planned to infiltrate the union and create another enter-prise-controlled union.

He added that 270 rural workers belonging to the rural workers' federation FENSUAGRO had been imprisoned and concluded by saying that violations of freedom of association in Colombia had increased in gravity and by asserting the right of workers in full freedom to establish organizations, elect their representatives, determine their programmes and save their own lives.

The Government member of Canada thanked the Government representative of Colombia for the additional information provided. However, he said that, despite the Government's efforts to improve security, and despite its acknowledgement in the London and Cartagena Declarations of the need to protect and guarantee the right to life and freedom of expression, the situation remained very serious. Trade unionists continued to disappear and continued to be threatened and assassinated. They were also facing other forms of violence, including, harassment, abductions and forced exile, as well as illegal searches and arbitrary detentions. Unfortunately, the perpetrators of these crimes were rarely brought to justice and his Government would look out for any positive results of the measures recently taken by the Government to end impunity. He urged the Government to take additional and concrete steps to end impunity in the country, to ensure that adequate resources were provided for the protection of trade unionists, and to work with the ILO through its Technical Cooperation Programme to pursue constructive social dialogue as a means of achieving social stability, respect for freedom of association and collective bargaining rights.

The Worker member of Venezuela said that the Committee had been examining the case of Colombia for many years and that each year the situation grew worse for the workers of the country. This year once again it was necessary to take note of very serious violations. For example, ECOPETROL had dismissed 247 trade unionists because they had opposed the policy of privatization and greater flexibility in the enterprise. TELECOM had been closed and mass dismissals had been undertaken in the Banco Cafetero. The postal administration and audiovisual companies had also been closed. These measures had been taken with the clear intention of making employment more flexible and less regular, through the imposition of so-called workers' cooperatives with the view to abolishing collective agreements and destroying trade unions. She also referred to acts of violence against trade union leaders and members. Between 1 January 2005 and the month of April, 16 unionized workers had been murdered, 123 had suffered death threats, 12 had been the victims of attempts upon their life, four had been kidnapped, 40 had been held under arbitrary detention and six had been forcibly displaced. The violence was reducing the level of unionization, as the workers were afraid to establish or join trade unions. She also referred to a plan to eliminate the trade union leaders of SINTRAEMCALI for having opposed the policy of greater flexibility and deregulation that was being imposed upon enterprises in the sector. Finally, she said that the Government needed to be called upon to guarantee the rights of organization, collective bargaining and strike and to put an end to the climate of violence against trade union leaders and members, and to the impunity enjoyed by those responsible for such violence. The Government should also be urged to take the necessary measures to reform the legislation and bring it into conformity with the Conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining.

The Employer member of Colombia said that he had requested the floor because of a remark by the Worker member of France since she had given a false account of a meeting of the group of trade unionists which had visited the country in September 2004. He therefore wished the Committee to hear directly from the actors involved. He said that Colombia was experiencing a very difficult situation, a long-standing situation of generalized violence and that Colombian enterprises wished to build an inclusive society in a constructive and positive manner. The entrepreneurial sector was contributing to this and was even providing additional resources. For example, 3.34 per cent of the income from sales were allocated to activities of a social nature. Employers promoted family compensation funds. Economic, social and political indicators, as well as action to combat drug trafficking, showed that progress was possible at the institutional level. This was where the private sector wanted resources to be managed in an effective and transparent manner. The recent policies to restructure public entities had been supported by the employers. He stated that he was a member of the Board of the Colombian Social Security Institute, which was of tripartite composition. He indicated that the Institute was losing 250 million dollars a year and that it was clear that dialogue was needed within the Board to find a solution. The position of the union had been intransigent and it had refused any change. It had to be taken into consideration that in a public entity, not only the workers were to be taken into account, but also the millions of insured persons. In relation to the reference to pensions, he said that there were no funds and that currently an estimated 12.5 per cent of the budget went on pensions. In other words, the pay-as-you-go system had collapsed. He asserted that, as a result, there was no policy specifically targeting the workers of the Pensions Institute, but a need to restructure the State. He indicated that 50 state enterprises had been undergoing renovation in various ways, which reflected the restructuring of the public sector in which employers and workers had been invited to participate. However, he said that the workers had never attended the meetings. The Dialogue Commission, which should operate every month and offered a space for dialogue, was not being used as the attitude of the unions was confrontational and not constructive. He said that both he and the National Association of Industries (ANDI) wished to build, through social dialogue and technical cooperation, a society with a better distribution of wealth. Statements by ANDI on the labour chapter of the free trade agreement had appeared in a Colombian newspaper. ANDI had indicated that, with or without the free trade agreement, it was necessary to move forward to change the cooperative system, the legal definition of the concept of essential public services and to modify the collective labour system in areas in which rights were being used in an abusive manner.

The Government member of Peru emphasized the efforts made by the Government of Colombia to reduce the violence and congratulated the Government members who had acknowledged this, in particular the Government representative who spoke on behalf of the European Union. He stated that his country had also gone through a process of internal violence which had been the result of terrorist movements, and he was aware that these actions affected various social sectors, including the trade union movement. He indicated that it was necessary to avoid excesses in the fight against violence. He requested this forum to acknowledge the efforts made by the Government and the people of Colombia and to ask the international community to continue to support this process, which was of particular value for the security of the countries in the region. He hoped that the Government, employers and workers could, through social dialogue and with the technical support of the ILO, create a space for tripartite dialogue similar to that existing in his country. In conclusion, he emphasized that in a climate of violence there could be no real democracy, and without democracy there could not be real respect for workers' rights.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom called for an end to the politicization which was weakening the authority of the Conference Committee. He reaffirmed that the comprehensive campaign to destroy the trade union movement in Colombia was extremely grave, with 94 more murders of trade unionists in 2004, which was more than in the rest of the world combined. Since 2002, there had been a 65 per cent increase in the total number of violations of the human rights of trade unionists, in the form of murders, disappearances, death threats, arbitrary detention and forcible displacement, and an 800 per cent increase in violations against women trade unionists. Yet, some members of the Conference Committee were still claiming that the situation was improving. He added that trade unionists were even harassed when they travelled outside Colombia and that the current regime was refusing to implement the United Nations recommendation demanding an end to the holding of military intelligence files on trade unionists.

He said that it was incredible that a government could arbitrarily detain dozens of trade unionists each year, yet remain unable to break the impunity with which state forces and their paramilitary allies murdered trade unionists. Moreover, detained trade unionists were commonly accused of rebellion and, even though they were eventually released for lack of evidence, the accusation alone served to place them on the death list of the paramilitaries. It had been said by the Employers' group of the Governing Body, in the case of the failure of Myanmar to comply with its obligations under Convention No. 29, that the prevailing impunity was an indication of its tolerance of the gross violation of forced labour, and that any State which lacked the means to punish such crimes was in violation of the principles defended by the ILO. It was absolutely clear that the very same principles should apply to cases of murder in Colombia. He said that delegations from the trade union movement in his country visited Colombia regularly and had been provided by the Vice-President with a list of 13 cases in which it was claimed that the perpetrators had been sentenced and imprisoned. Yet, even in these 13 cases, out of the total of 791 murders of trade unionists between 1999 and 2004, in at least three cases the information provided had been inaccurate or economical with the truth. Indeed, the Government representative had now referred to only four convictions. Focusing on three specific cases, he outlined the inconsistencies in the information provided by the Government and undertook to provide the Office with the related documentation. He said that he could only conclude that, in attempting to suggest that the issue of impunity was being dealt with, the Government was not providing accurate information. He further cited a putative tripartite agreement referred to by the Government of Colombia in a recent discussion in the Governing Body as proof of the progress reached in terms of social dialogue, which had, in fact, been repudiated by the trade unions. He had also received information that the Government had revested to the National Treasury $83,000 unspent from the ILO fund - which the Governing Body had not been told. He expressed concern that the Conference Committee was being prevented from reaching appropriate decisions regarding the case of Colombia, not only by the political and economic interests involved, but also by the lack of verifiable and accurate information. Yet, the ILO's supervisory bodies had the right to expect member States to provide truthful information, which was the underlying reason why a tripartite high-level mission to Colombia was required.

He urged the Committee to adopt conclusions which reflected the continuing deterioration in the situation and that the continued violations of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 were indeed destroying the Colombian trade union movement. If the Committee failed to do so, it would be encouraging further repression, rather than fulfilling its essential role of defending the fundamental right of all workers whatsoever to join and establish organizations of their own choosing for the defence of their interests, including through free collective bargaining.

The Government member of Brazil indicated that his Government was following with great attention developments in Colombia with respect to freedom of association and had taken due note of the statement made by the Government representative. His Government considered that the Conference Committee should support the measures that had been taken with a view to encouraging and strengthening social dialogue in Colombia. It should also take into account the results achieved by the Technical Cooperation Programme concluded between the Government of Colombia and the ILO. He hoped that the Government of Colombia would follow up the measures that had been proposed to improve labour relations in the country.

The Government member of Mexico thanked the Government representative of Colombia for the information provided, which demonstrated the Government's constructive attitude and its cooperation to guarantee the trade union rights provided for in Convention No. 87. The results described might not be up to the expectations of the Committee, but it should be recognized that they indicated that progress was gradually being made. The situation made it difficult to punish the perpetrators of violent acts against trade unionists and violence was affecting all sectors of society. She encouraged the Government, employers and workers of Colombia to strengthen their dialogue and cooperation so as to continue implementing the special Technical Cooperation Programme for the country.

The Government member of China said that the information provided by the Government representative showed that Colombia was indeed making efforts to protect trade union rights. Action was therefore being taken and progress was being made. However, although a gradual improvement was being achieved in the effort to solve the problem, all sides agreed that there was still a long way to go. She noted that the ILO and the Government were engaged in cooperation and hoped that it would be effective in achieving a solution to the problem. She called upon all sides to adopt a practical attitude to enhancing the implementation of the Convention in Colombia and to achieve a settlement of the important issues at stake.

A Government representative said that his comments in reply to the previous speakers could be divided into three parts: (1) there was agreement on important points; (2) there were differences of information; and (3) there were differences of opinion. With regard to the areas of agreement, he felt that employers, workers, most governments and the Government of Colombia all agreed that the ILO programme of technical cooperation had been functioning and that it should continue to do so. He asserted that they should agree to implement the Governing Body's decision of March 2005 and to seek the necessary resources. He pointed out that there had been agreement in so far as governments, as well as employers and workers, had all made reference to violence, and had indicated that the violence was the result of subversive groups and the drug trafficking that had placed the country in this situation. They had also all agreed that even one death was unacceptable. They agreed on the fact that this unacceptable violence, which was inexplicable due to its complexity, made union activities difficult. He added that it was also a difficult situation for employers who ran the risk of being kidnapped and assassinated. There was a situation of generalized violence and the labour situation had to be understood in this context. They had also agreed on the need to combat impunity.

With regard to the second point, differences of information, he recalled the assertion that Bancafé was a solid enterprise. This, however, was wrong, as the Government had already provided it with 612 million dollars, of which 55 million were intended for pensions. Moreover, they were not in agreement on statistics. The workers had said that unemployment had increased, while the Government had indicated that unemployment in 2001 was 20 per cent and had fallen to 12 per cent last month. Government figures showed a clear fall in unemployment. He also referred to other indicators and said that he was offering the data supplied by the Government to the workers so they could examine them, noting that the data had been compiled by independent entities. Nor was there agreement that, as claimed by the workers, the number of collective agreements was falling, as 491 collective agreements had been concluded in 2000, 433 in 2001 and over 400 in 2004. In other words, the average number of collective agreements concluded had not changed. There had not been agreement on the statement that the health care system was not functioning, as last year had witnessed the greatest increase in health coverage for the underprivileged sector of the population. He regretted to hear statements claiming that justice was rarely impartial. He pointed out that many judges were union members and he could not accept the assertion that they were being manipulated. With regard to TELECOM, he said that the Government had no means to support it and that TELECOM did not have sufficient capital. He recalled that many European countries had been obliged to privatize public enterprises and that the President of Colombia had not taken a decision to liquidate TELECOM, but had decided to maintain the enterprise under efficient management. Reference had been made to the dismissal of workers, but nothing had been said about the 70 million dollars provided in compensation and other benefits. It had been said that credit was not available for farmers, but the amount of funds available for microcredit had increased to 2.1 billion dollars. The Government was said to have prohibited the access of trade union members, but Mr. Carlos Rodriguez, who was in the room, did not mention that he had called from the airport because of the difficulties encountered and that after a few hours his group had been able to go through, had been received by the Government and that their visas had even been extended to 30 days. One group of workers had decided to return to their respective countries, but that was a voluntary decision. As for the death of trade union members, he indicated that the workers had not mentioned that the Arauca investigation had been transferred from a military to a civilian court.

Finally, the speaker said that he could not accept the fact that a tripartite forum used adjectives with reference to interventions and that Mr. Uribe had been called a fascist and a liar, or the State an assassin. This was not acceptable behaviour in the ILO for employers or for workers. The discussion should be of a predominantly technical nature and he was concerned about such statements, which were loaded with hate and political interest. He refused to respond to such accusations, except to deny them.

On behalf of his Government, he called upon employers and workers to understand that the situation of the Colombian people was difficult, but that progress was being made. There had been some encouraging results, which showed not that the problems had been resolved, but that efforts were continuously being made. He indicated that, earlier in the day, he had held a meeting with the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association and that he had invited him to come to Colombia and meet with the various sectors of Colombian society and all the actors involved in the issue of impunity. He emphasized that both problems and achievements should be recognized. It was necessary to be careful, because there was a risk that, in seeking to punish Colombia, decisions might be taken which could then be used for political purposes, which would not benefit the people of Colombia. He called for the Technical Cooperation Programme to be continued so as to strengthen social dialogue and help reduce violence.

Another Government representative (Vice-Minister of Social Protection) stated the importance of collaboration and cooperation between all instances of the Organization and the Government of Colombia. The Government had invited the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association to visit the country and meet with the Executive Branch, judges, supervisory bodies, workers' and employers' organizations and to get in touch with public opinion. His Government would provide all the necessary information to explain and find a solution to the problems. Collaboration was necessary in order to ensure greater transparency.

The speaker stated that his Government was ready to extend the invitation to the spokespersons for the Worker and Employer members of this Committee, if their visit would contribute to the better understanding of the situation and to finding solutions.

The Worker members took note of the Government's proposals for a visit to take place in Colombia to take full cognizance of the actual situation in the country. They agreed that the problems of the country went well beyond those mentioned by the Committee of Experts in its observation, as witnessed by the obstacles encountered by workers' organizations when they sought to have the most fundamental rights of their members respected.

The Worker members suggested that the Conference Committee decide in favour of a high-level tripartite mission to Colombia, which would include among its members the two Vice-Chairpersons of the Conference Committee and whose mandate would be the application of the Convention and technical cooperation.

The Employer members observed that the problem of violence was central to this difficult case and putting an end to it was essential for the resolution of the case. They noted that the Government was facing difficulties in addressing this problem comprehensively.

The Employer members took note of the proposal made by the Government representative to invite the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Vice-Chairpersons of the Conference Committee to visit the country. They saw this as a positive step that should be commended. They wanted to draw attention, however, to the need to recognize that the mandate and purpose of the Committee on Freedom of Association was different from that of the Conference Committee. The mandate of the Conference Committee was limited to the implementation of the Convention in law and in practice. The Committee on Freedom of Association had a broader mandate which was not limited to the terms of the Convention.

The Employer members concluded by noting that the visit would include contacts with the social partners and monitoring bodies, and would place emphasis on the implementation of the Convention in law and in practice with particular focus on the ILO special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia.

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Minister of Social Protection and the discussion that followed. The Committee observed with great concern that the pending problems were extremely serious and related in particular to murders of trade union leaders and members, other acts of violence against trade unionists and the situation of impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators. The Committee observed that the acts of violence also affected other sectors and groups including the employers, in particular through abductions. The Committee noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association had examined serious complaints concerning murders and acts of violence against trade unionists. The Committee condemned once again in the strongest terms all these acts of violence in the context of the dramatic situation of violence experienced by the country and indicated to the Government that it had the obligation to take all necessary measures urgently in order to put an end to violence and guarantee the security of persons.

The Committee took note of the Government's statements according to which the number of murders of trade unionists and acts of violence had decreased and the authorities had adopted measures for the protection of trade unionists and trade union premises. The Committee also noted the information contained in the report of the Attorney-General on indictments, detentions and sentences in relation to murders as well as on the new system of incrimination to increase the effectiveness of the investigations in the framework of the fight against impunity.

The Committee recalled that the organizations of workers and employers could exercise their activities in a free and meaningful manner only in a climate that was free from violence and once again urged the Government to guarantee the right to life and security, and to reinforce urgently the necessary institutions to put an end to the inadmissible situation of impunity which constituted a great obstacle to the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. The Committee requested the reinforcement of the protection measures for trade unionists and of the ILO Technical Cooperation Programme. The Committee observed more generally that the climate which reigned in the country endangered the exercise of trade union activities and other human rights and that this situation was unacceptable. The Committee noted that the Government had invited the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association to meet with the social actors and the competent authorities in Colombia.

With regard to the requested legal reforms, the Committee took note of the Government's statements on the legal questions raised by the Committee of Experts. The Committee took note of the Government's statements according to which time was needed to move ahead in the process of adjusting the labour legislation and the tripartite labour negotiation.

The Committee took note of the information and allegations of the Worker members in relation to: the failure to respect trade union rights in the context of a large number of restructurings, privatizations, or mergers, particularly in the pubic sector among others; mass dismissals; other anti-union dismissals; the recourse to cooperatives which constituted hidden employment relationships and deprived workers of freedom of association and collective bargaining; the increasing recourse to collective accords with non-unionized workers and the slowness, complexity, malfunctioning, and partiality of judicial processes. The Committee requested the Government to communicate information to the Committee of Experts on all the above points.

The Committee requested the Government to send a detailed report to the Committee of Experts, so that it could examine the developments at its next meeting, including the reply to the comments presented by trade union organizations with regard to the acts of violence, to obstacles to the registration of trade unions and to the provisions mentioned by the Committee of Experts. The Committee requested the Government to report on the number of cases of murders which had come to an end before the judicial instances and in which it had been possible to identify those responsible and punish those guilty so that the serious situation of impunity could be contained.

The Committee expressed the firm hope that in the very near future real progress would be observed in particular in order to overcome all obstacles to the full exercise of freedom of association with a view to allowing trade union organizations to exercise the rights guaranteed by the Convention in a climate of full security, free from threats and fear. The Committee underlined the importance of having these objectives met through social dialogue and agreement and recalled that the technical assistance of the Office was at the Government's disposal. The Committee requested the Government and the social actors to reactivate social dialogue without delay. The Committee urged the Government to take measures in this respect urgently.

The Committee, noting that the Government had extended its invitation to the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons of the Committee on the Application of Standards, decided that a high-level tripartite visit should take place led by the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association accompanied by the spokespersons of the Employer and Worker groups of the Committee. The visit that should take place would include meetings with the Government, the organizations of workers and employers, the competent organs of Colombia in the area of investigation and supervision, and would place particular emphasis on all questions relative to the application of Convention No. 87 in law and in practice and to the ILO special Technical Cooperation programme for Colombia.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2004, Publication: 92nd ILC session (2004)

A Government representative (Vice-Minister of Labour Relations) stated that year after year Colombia had been before this Committee providing information and explanations necessary so that each time a more objective picture of the situation in the country became apparent. She reiterated the permanent willingness for dialogue with the aim of a constructive debate from which conclusions could be derived to strengthen freedom of association. She noted that Convention No. 87 generated the most observations in the Committee, which reflected the complexities of the process of adjusting national legislation to the provisions of the Convention. In the case of Colombia the process of adjustment had continued throughout the years. The Committee of Experts had listed her country as a case of progress in its General Survey on freedom of association of 1994, in relation to law No. 50 of 1990, one of the laws most attacked by Colombian workers as a violation of freedom of association.

She recalled that in 2000 the Committee of Experts still pointed to 13 discrepancies between national legislation and Convention No. 87 and its principles. In its report of 2001, the Committee noted with satisfaction the adoption of law No. 584 of 13 June 2000 which derogated or modified 10 of the discrepancies, leaving only the three discrepancies the Committee currently noted. Despite the changes which had been incorporated in the legislation over time, a clear indication of a sustained state policy respecting the trade union movement and freedom of association, Colombia had been called year after year before this Committee. The first discrepancy which still existed was the prohibition for federations and confederations to declare a strike. The Government considered that negotiation should take place between the employer and the trade union and not people outside of the enterprise, which only complicated the negotiations. These reasons of convenience which aimed at strengthening dialogue between employers and workers explained this discrepancy in respect to which the Government continued to have an open dialogue with the ILO.

The second discrepancy referred to the prohibition to strike in a range of services, which for the Committee were too wide, in relation to the concept of essential services which had been accepted, as well as the possibility to dismiss trade union leaders who had participated in an "illegal strike". This observation touched on two aspects: the concept of essential services and the power to dismiss workers who participated in an illegal cessation of work. In Colombia the notion of public service came from a long tradition of French law which gave great importance to this concept in regard to the functions of the State. Over time Colombian legislation had come to refer to public services as "all organized activity which satisfied needs of a general interest in a regular and continuous manner in accordance with a special legal framework, provided by the State, directly or indirectly, or by private persons". For this school of thought public service was in its very nature essential and this quality was due to the fact that the State directly or through decentralized functions was in charge of providing such services, given the importance they represented for the development of society. The concept of "essential services" developed by the ILO was not the product of the same legal tradition which animated the Colombian system, which was the result of the need to balance the particular interests of workers and their right to strike - which the ILO had derived from Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 - and the general interests of society which was affected by the strike.

Each one of these concepts came from different legal conceptions which explained the discrepancies. These were not due to a Government policy of non-respect of international labour conventions, as affirmed by the workers. The Government was open to dialogue with the ILO to identify alternatives to meet or surpass obligations. With respect to the second aspect regarding "the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who had intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (section 450(2) of the Labour Code)", she underlined that there were no "unlawful strikes" in Colombia. Strikes were consecrated and guaranteed in legislation in both their substantive and procedural aspects, and none of the laws relating to the same had figured in the observation of the Committee of Experts, leading to the conclusion that the law was in conformity with the provisions of Convention No. 87. From this perspective there was not even the possibility to fire workers for having participated in a strike.

Another matter was the collective cessation of activities which was illegal when occurring in cases foreseen in article 450 of the substantive Labour Code, supplemented by article 56 of the Political Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court, both in the Labour Cassation and Constitutional chambers, in relation to essential public services. Such was the case of decision C-450 of October 1995 of the Supreme Court according to which essential public services were the exploitation, refining and transport of petroleum and its derivatives. This pronouncement was in conformity with the provisions of article 56 of the Political Constitution which guaranteed the right to strike, except in essential public services. Of the seven reasons foreseen in legislation to declare a cessation of activities illegal, only the one relating to stoppage in the public services had been the subject of observations by the Committee of Experts. As a result, elementary logic would lead one to conclude that if the point on the illegal cessation of activities was not questioned by the Committee of Experts as being contrary to Convention No. 87, except in respect to public services, there was no reason to question the legal power which permitted employers to fire those who had participated in one of these illegal cessations of activity. Concerning the third discrepancy regarding "the authority of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike exceeded a certain period (section 448(4) of the Labour Code)", the attribution foreseen in the aforementioned law was voluntary and not obligatory for the Government. This authority was used on few occasions, and she could affirm that the current Government had never used this possibility. This indicated that the discrepancies in the legislation were due to different interpretations by the Government and the Committee of Experts of the same standards. Therefore, an open dialogue with the Office to allow for an exchange of ideas and arguments with the aim of finding alternatives was needed. In relation to the comment that the Government's report had not contained observations on the comments made by the ICFTU, she noted that these comments had been received by the Government after the meeting of the Committee.

With regard to the decrease in the number of trade unionists and trade union leaders assassinated, the Government was aware that one death was reason enough to reaffirm its support for a policy of democratic security, and even if the decrease in the number was not, and could not be, a motive for satisfaction, it did encourage the Government to move forward after proving that it had produced advances in the right direction and in a sustained manner. With regard to the "grave climate" of persistent violence which the Committee mentioned, there had existed for the past five years the Protection Programme under the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, which was unique in the world and which offered protection to the populations most affected by narco-terrorist violence. Four thousand five hundred and seventy-six trade unionists benefited from approximately 2,218 means of protection. The programme offered escorts, small weapons, cars or armoured cars, protection for headquarters of trade unions, transportation support, communications, temporary relocation and national and international "tickets". To this effect it was necessary to increase the budget of the programme to the point where 70 per cent of resources went to the protection of trade unionists. Thanks to this programme an important decrease in assassinations and acts of violence against trade unionists had been registered, although this was still insufficient. There had been 120 homicides in 2002, committed presumably for the exercise of trade union activities; 54 occurred in 2003; and this year 17 violent deaths had been registered in comparison to 22 registered in the same period last year. Finally, the speaker stated that she had not noticed in the report of the Committee of Experts any encouragement to the Government in its struggle to improve conditions of freedom of association. Nevertheless, her country would redouble efforts in its policy of democratic security and in the fight for bigger and better protection to trade unionists and trade union leaders who were at risk. She reiterated the willingness of her Government to continue the fight for freedom of association and fundamental rights of workers.

The Worker members stressed that, over the past number of years, the extremely serious violations of the freedom of association in Colombia had consistently appeared as an agenda item in the Committee's work. The ILO, as a whole, had been very much concerned with these violations. On several occasions, the Governing Body had considered actions to be undertaken, particularly when the Special Rapporteur of the Director-General presented his reports following a request made by the Worker members to find means of action that would address the situation accordingly. Subsequently, the Worker members requested a Commission of Inquiry to be dispatched to Colombia to break the inertia that prevailed year after year on the issues of concern. This impasse was confirmed by the Committee of Experts' report which stated: "... The Committee nonetheless observes with deep concern the persistent climate of violence in the country and the conclusions of May 2003 of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1787 and those of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards citing new murders and other acts of violence. The Committee echoes the two abovementioned bodies in requesting the Government to strengthen the relevant institutions still further in order to put an end to the intolerable situation of impunity, which constitutes a serious obstacle to the free exercise of the trade union rights protected by the Convention, so as to punish all those responsible effectively." In the past, numerous violations were the subject of discussions, in particular the violence exercised against trade unionists who were killed by the thousands more than a decade ago; the characterization of trade union activities as criminal offences; and the impunity which prevented all types of measures of having any effect whatsoever. The impunity was seen as the heart of the problem. As long as the life of a person had no value and was allowed to be taken with no punishment, the assassins would continue their practice. The Government had reported a lower rate of assassinations. Was that a reason for applauding? Once again, hundreds of people have lost their lives since the last meeting of this Committee. The latter had no information whatsoever concerning any investigations to find the perpetrators of atrocities and to punish them accordingly. A state of law and courage should prevail over a state of cowardice and impunity.

The Experts, once again, had pointed to problems regarding the implementation of Convention No. 87 relating to the right of trade unionists to freely organize their activities. In this regard, the Committee of Experts recalled, the prohibition on the calling of strikes by federations and confederations as provided for in the Labour Code; the prohibition on strikes not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term but also in a wide range of services which are not necessarily essential; and the authority of the Labour Minister to submit disputes to arbitration within a certain timeframe. The response of the Government was difficult to accept since, instead of taking the necessary measures to harmonize national law with the Convention, the Government limited itself to stating that the review of the labour legislative proposal, of which the Consultative Commission on Labour and Social Policies had been seized in 2002, had not yet taken place. The Government should have provided a report on the reform proposals, or more generally, on the observations of the Committee of Experts. Instead, the Colombian Government presented a press communiqué which related to political issues of no concern to the items listed on the agenda of the meeting, namely the impunity issue and the questions on the restrictions of trade union activities. The debate should have been focused on the implementation of standards and not on political questions, nor should it have been addressed through the press.

The Colombian situation required a common political will to resolve the serious problems facing male and female Colombian workers and the public at large. This political will was to target accurately the responsibilities concerned. In the press communiqué, the Minister of Labour presented a difficult reading of his report which reflected his perception of the situation. According to the press release, the true problem was the trade unions themselves: "union movements must help us resolve several problems which the country is facing instead of being part of the problem itself". Hence, the fault laid upon those who refused to submit passively to the Government's demands. On several occasions, the ILO's inability to act in an independent manner and with the necessary courage was observed. Last year the Committee was not able to arrive at a decision with regard to placing its conclusions in a special paragraph, even in the face of a situation where dozens of trade unionists had lost their lives due to the Government's inaction in taking adequate measures to halt the carnage which had persisted for several decades. Moreover, the Governing Body did not reach a decision to dispatch a Commission of Inquiry to Colombia. The ILO had adopted several Conventions on freedom of association and free collective bargaining and considered them as fundamental standards for the very reason of preventing any avoidance of responsibilities, and to enable workers, on their own account and in the interest of their families, to carry out freely their activities and express their grievances. The Worker members would have liked to have seen progress made on the punishment of assassins as well as on the issue of freedom of association in law and in practice. They expressed the hope that the Government would change the laws and the practice vis-à-vis the observations that had previously been made and that a true spirit of dialogue and openness would lead to the review by the Colombian Government, together with trade unions, of the problems faced, instead of creating more in their place.

The Employer members stated that this case took place within the context of conditions similar to a civil war. Violence touched on politicians, economic leaders, lawyers as well as union leaders, and was perpetrated by groups such as the FARC and other paramilitary groups who often committed crimes in the name of different ideologies. There was no unique recipe for establishing peace in Colombia and they noted that it was not the mandate of this Committee to evaluate different measures to this effect. Freedom of association was not possible in a climate of violence, yet the full guarantee of freedom of association would not end violence either. They recalled that in 2001 the Committee of Experts had noted a number of changes in legislation in relation to the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and had classified this case as a case of progress. For the Committee of Experts there remained three legal obstacles to the exercise of freedom of association. The Employer members stressed that they disagreed with the views of the Committee of Experts with regard to the right to strike, recalling that the preparatory works to Convention No. 87 and the decision taken by the Conference in 1948 in relation to the right to strike pointed out that the right to strike was not covered by the Convention. Therefore, the Employer members did not call upon the Government to undertake changes in existing legislation in this regard.

They stressed that in order to achieve the exercise of freedom of association, all measures would have to be taken to end the climate of violence in this country. The current Government appeared to follow a different path in this regard. While violence had not disappeared in Colombia, the statistical data indicated that violence had slightly decreased over the past two years. Nevertheless, the persisting level of violence remained unacceptable, as it endangered not only freedom of association but other rights as well. The Government had to adopt sterner measures with regard to the prosecution of crimes. The Employer members noted programmes for the protection of trade unionists, and the fact that police stations had been established in nearly all villages and that trade union leaders now occupied important public posts. The Government also appeared to be actively fighting right-wing paramilitary groups. The Employer members noted the slight improvement in the Colombian national economy and the agreement between the ILO and Colombia on technical cooperation projects. They also noted the offer made by the Government of Mexico to carry out difficult negotiations to end the violence. In this respect the Employer members concluded that the Government should not be weakened as this might jeopardize such projects and give the criminal groups operating in Colombia an upper hand. They therefore urged the Committee to request the Government to be even more determined in its efforts to put an end to the violence in the country.

The Government member of the United States stated that her Government remained deeply concerned about the environment in Colombia that bred such devastating violence against trade unionists. Her Government continued to support efforts aimed at finding solutions to the core problems that had created this situation, improving the skills and effectiveness of Colombian trade unionists, and protecting the lives of trade unionists at risk. She noted that although the number of murders and other acts of violence had dropped, this number was still appallingly high, and threats of violence continued to occur with distressing frequency. At the same time, the number of convictions against the perpetrators of violence was still unacceptably low.

Freedom of association was critical if Colombia was to move successfully along the path to peace, social justice, reconciliation and democracy. Yet freedom of association could only thrive in conditions where fundamental human rights - in particular those relating to human life and personal safety - were fully respected and guaranteed. Therefore her Government called on the Government of Colombia - in the context of ILO technical cooperation and assistance - to reinforce protection measures and security schemes for Colombian trade unionists, to ensure that all acts of violence were investigated and prosecuted and that those responsible were convicted and punished, and to move forward in the process of labour law reform so that law and practice fully conformed to ratified ILO Conventions on freedom of association.

A Worker member of Colombia stated that unfortunately he had to say in all honesty that the trade unions and workers' organizations of Colombia were deeply disappointed by the results obtained in two areas: the protection of the right to life and the exercise of trade union activities, which was becoming day after day even more difficult in the country. This Committee had been occupied with the topic of Colombia for the last 18 years, especially with respect to violations of Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and 151, which had become a kind of ritual repeated year after year: the workers denounced, the ILO queried the Government, the Government responded, the workers persisted, the ILO requested new information, the Committee of Experts noted its concerns in its reports, this Committee dealt with the case, time passed and the situation, instead of improving, deteriorated. It was necessary to recognize that there was a big difference between 108 trade unionists killed last year and 182 trade unionists killed the year before. Nevertheless, it would be perverse to interpret this number as a case of progress, above all because no-one anywhere should be assassinated for having exercised a trade union activity. It was a deep problem because, when talking about the survival of trade unionism in Colombia, one talked about freedom of association in a country where during the last 14 years anti-union behaviour and a systematic campaign on the part of different governments and certain business sectors intensified, with the goal of exterminating trade unionism.

Last year, while this Committee was debating about freedom of association in Colombia the installations of TELECOM and 14 other telecommunications companies were staffed by public forces since all the workers had been dismissed without legal reason affecting more than 7,000 families. At the same time unacceptable violations were being committed against collective agreements, the Labour Code, the Political Constitution, and ILO Conventions. In the largest beer company in Colombia there existed three years ago a union of 4,000 members. Today, after having deprived these workers of their right to strike, the organization had been dismantled and the collective agreement converted into a pacto colectivo, and so far there had been no sign of any government action to investigate the facts or to apply relevant sanctions.

Concerns regarding freedom of association became clear when the Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Health fused to create the Ministry of Social Protection, with grave consequences for workers with respect to freedom of association, which could be evidenced by the current situations of those affiliated with the social security union, the chaotic situation of workers and their organizations in the health sector, and by the total lack of protection which assured that in the Labour Ministry there would be no attention paid to claims, and the situation in the public sector as well as the private sector. This was happening to the extent that courts had become accustomed to make decisions more in the area of politics than in the domain of law as had occurred with the workers of the Red Cross (Cundinamarca and Bogota sections) on whom an arbitration tribunal was imposed illegally. One of the courts had not only validated the decision in an absolutely unacceptable manner, but had stripped the workers of all their rights.

The speaker said that he did not want to open a political debate, he just wanted the trade union movement to remain alive and that the rights of organizations, of collective bargaining and of strike be maintained. The best example of this was the signing on 17 May of a collective agreement between the Mayor of Bogota and 53,000 public servants. He stressed the importance of the freedom of expression and of the right to strike without fear of losing one's life, which would prevent the re-occurrence of situations such as that of the Ecopetrol Company where 248 workers were dismissed for having exercised this constitutional right. In this sense the speaker trusted that the ILO would conclude - as it had done in the case concerning the petroleum strike in Venezuela - that such actions were lawful since that they did not relate to an essential public service. Finally, he indicated his desire to establish a Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission in the country, for the purpose of clarifying what had occurred in a search for the truth in a drama that had touched everyone. This was not a sanction but a precautionary measure of general utility. Furthermore, it was necessary to guarantee the continuation of the ILO technical cooperation programme. It was hoped that on this occasion there would be no double standards - as was the case last year - when it was decided not to apply precautionary measures to Colombia but nonetheless to adopt a special paragraph for Venezuela, in an unjust manner and without satisfactory explanation, for a much less serious situation.

Another Worker member of Colombia stated that for many years, the Committee had been discussing practices violating certain Conventions in the field of freedom of association and human rights, like in the case of Convention No. 87, and that the Committee of Experts repeatedly requested the Government of Colombia to ensure compliance with the Conventions. However, nothing had been done, and on the contrary, the violations of labour rights, trade union rights and civil rights became more frequent. The speaker urged that, facing such a situation, the Committee on the Application of Standards should on the basis of ILO principles and the Declaration of Philadelphia examine objectively the evolution of the situation in Colombia and act accordingly beyond political interests.

The speaker pointed out that the human rights situation in Colombia was critical. Violations of the right to life, of personal freedom and integrity was common practice. It was a tragedy which required outstanding commitments on the part of the Government, the judiciary and the public forces, in order to ensure and respect the right to life, in conformity with the Political Constitution. The debate should not concentrate on whether the number of victims had been reduced or not, since a murder was a human tragedy, especially when committed out of intolerance or differences in opinions. There were also other forms of human rights violations in Colombia, like arbitrary detention on a massive scale, threats and harassment. Impunity was the most shocking phenomenon, since it fed the constant threat of crimes against trade union leaders and activists. It was also extremely worrying because of certain doubts raised on several occasions as regards the functioning of the Office of the Attorney-General.

The speaker indicated that, besides the above, the State was pursuing an anti-union policy, in collaboration with employers, aiming at the destruction of trade unions, which was a flagrant violation of Conventions and which involved the suspension of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, as well as the elimination of individual contracts between workers and employers, thus impeding the exercise of the right to organize. Similarly, the collective bargaining procedures were violated and denied contrary to the provisions of Convention No. 151. According to official statistics, in 2003, out of 4 million workers employed in the formal sector, only 49,200 could benefit from collective bargaining. Restrictions on the right to strike were clearly reflected in the fact that, out of 30 industrial disputes, 26 had been declared unlawful. Under the circumstances, the speaker requested the ILO to reaffirm, in connection with the strike organized by USO at the Ecopetrol Company, the principles referred to in the cases of Costa Rica and Venezuela, and remind the Government of Colombia of the legality of strikes in the oil sector. As regards the technical cooperation programme, the speaker recognized its contribution to the protection of life of threatened trade unionists. He regretted that no social dialogue was developed, which could help the creation of a culture of trade union tolerance among the Government and employers, but also the perception of technical cooperation as a cooperation mechanism, and not as a sanction. For the above reasons, the speaker requested the establishment of a Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission in Colombia.

Another Worker member of Colombia stated that the Government and the Colombian enterprises had developed an anti-trade union policy, as had been confirmed by the supervisory bodies of the ILO, which had made observations and recommendations with a view to ensuring the realization of freedom of association. The Government had also not pursued a policy of consultation with the trade union movement. To the contrary, it had ignored workers' rights and had imposed economic and social policies against these rights, and it promoted draft legislation without first submitting it to the National Consultation Commission, as required by the Colombian Constitution and the principles of social dialogue.

He stated that the Government had previously announced the adoption of a working plan of the Inter-Institutional Committee for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights of Workers, which was applied only minimally due to the lack of will and sufficient resources. Even though the ILO had noted acts of violence against Colombian trade unionists since 1987, it was important to point out that, between 1 May 2003 and 30 April 2004, 108 trade unionists had been assassinated, of which 55 were educators. Between January and May 2004, 22 trade unionists had been assassinated. If the impunity which protected the perpetrators and instigators of crimes against trade unionists continued, as the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts recently reiterated, one could not speak of human rights of workers nor of conditions necessary for the exercise of freedom of association. The non-respect for Convention No. 87 was once again shown by declaring unlawful the strike at the Colombian Petroleum Enterprise, the firing of 248 workers, including trade union leaders, and the replacement of striking workers by managerial staff of the enterprise. All this went on in spite of the discrepancies that the ILO had been signalling since 1987 and also contrary to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Colombia.

The speaker stated that, according to the Court, when the State acted as an employer, it was contrary to the principle of good faith for a government body to declare a strike unlawful, since this decision would be manifestly partial. The other arbitrary decision taken by the Government was to consider oil-related activities an essential public service. The ILO had stated on numerous occasions that the extraction, distribution, production, transport and refining of oil could not be considered, in itself, an essential public service. The report of the Committee of Experts this year recalled in the case of Costa Rica that oil refineries were not essential services in the strict sense of the term and that the exercise of the right to strike should be guaranteed in such services, without it being possible, for example, to replace striking workers by other workers.

He indicated that currently a strike was coming to a head in the banana sector, led by SINTRAINAGRO, which had as its objective to prevent enterprises for eliminating the system of contracting labour and that of social security. In compliance with ILO standards, the exercise of the right to strike and the conclusion of collective agreements should be respected. He called upon the Committee to reiterate its recommendations so that Colombia could bring its legislation into line with the Conventions of the ILO. For this reason, he requested: the abolition of the authority of the Minister of Social Protection to declare strikes unlawful; the determination of essential services in conformity with ILO criteria; the repeal of the authority of the Minister to name arbitrators in the context of obligatory arbitration for labour disputes in state enterprises; the repeal of the authority of the Minister to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike exceeded a certain period; the removal of the authority to fire workers as a consequence of having declared a strike unlawful; the derogation of the prohibition on the calling of strikes by federations and confederations; and the full application of Convention No. 151, through which state workers could exercise their trade union rights, as noted in this year's report of the Committee of Experts. At the same time, enterprises should not be allowed to conclude or give preference to pactos colectivos with non-unionized workers, a practice which was supported by the judiciary and the Government. Finally, he noted that the satisfaction and the interest which had been expressed by the Committee of Experts as regards the application of Conventions Nos. 29, 111, 129 and 169 left one to wonder, since this clearly did not reflect reality. To the contrary, what was apparent was a plan to eliminate trade unionism. For this reason he requested the setting-up of a Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission.

The Worker member of the United States recalled that in 1999, the Committee on Freedom of Association, in its conclusion to case No. 1787, had deplored that no significant progress had taken place and that it had trusted the Governing Body to take this into account in its deliberations on the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry on Colombia. Since then this Committee had reviewed the case of Colombia in all of its sessions. A direct contacts mission had been despatched, a technical cooperation programme had been launched, and a Special Representative of the Director-General had been appointed, yet hundreds of Colombian trade unionists had been assassinated, kidnapped, assaulted or threatened with impunity. He noted that the Colombian Government had pointed to the relative decline in the number of assassinations. He wondered whether the 90 trade unionists murdered in 2003 or the 26 murdered already this year were really a reason for congratulations. He also stated that the coverage provided to the 1,424 unionists by the Interior Ministry's trade union protection programme was woefully insufficient given the thousands of unionists at risk. According to the Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS), this figure was in any case inflated as it covered other sectors than trade unions, and according to the Colombian Commission of Jurists, the protection programme consisted of nothing more than furnishing a mobile phone to a potential victim in some cases. He further noted that the decline in assassinations had more to do with the temporary ceasefire in force between the paramilitaries and the Government than the protection programme. Indeed, the ENS had pointed to an increase in death threats against unionists since 2002.

He stressed that the key element in protecting Colombian trade unionists was the effective prosecution and conviction of those responsible for the violence. Unfortunately, Colombia's National Prosecutorial Unit on Human Rights had admitted that of 3,000 cases of assassinated trade unionists between 30 August 1986 and 30 April 2002, only five had led to a conviction. He noted that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had concluded, in 2003, that the Colombian Attorney-General had interfered in the investigations of murders.

He also stated that Colombian law continued to be in violation of Convention No. 87. In addition to the points raised by the Committee of Experts in this regard, he pointed to the continued existence of "pactos colectivos directos" between employers and groups of individual employees. Section 46 of Law No. 50 continued to restrict registration of new trade unions, and the same law continued to hamper the establishment of collective bargaining representatives for the public sector and industry. He concluded that this case was of particular concern to the United States and Colombian trade unions as both these countries were negotiating a free trade agreement in which there would be no requirement to harmonize labour legislation with ILO standards, but merely to enforce existing national law.

The Worker member of Sweden stated that an anti-unions mentality had taken hold in Colombia, both among the State and the employers. As mentioned in the previous reports, high officials of the State had a habit of making declarations in public making the trade union movement and collective bargaining responsible for the recurrent economic crises in the country. As pointed out in the study published in the economics magazine "Portafolio", the employers did not view trade unions favourably. In these circumstances, Colombian workers deserved a maximum support at the moment when the exercise of the freedom of association rights continued to have dramatic consequences. One hundred and eight trade unionists had been assassinated last year and already 22 since the beginning of this year, which showed very explicitly the seriousness of the situation.

Another serious problem was that of the destruction of collective bargaining, which in 2003 covered only 49,000 workers out of 4 million employed in the formal sector. These facts pointed to the need to reinforce the Special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia. The ILO Governing Body already had an opportunity to request the Government to urgently put an end to the impunity of persons who committed acts of violence against trade unionists. The cooperation programme should not be looked upon as a sanction, but rather as a valid instrument contributing to facilitating and improving the exercise of the freedom of association rights and also facilitating the promotion and application of the fundamental rights at work.

The speaker requested the ILO to reinforce the technical cooperation programme, which implied the guarantees for the necessary economic resources for reaching objectives identified by the Governing Body. There was great concern among workers all over the world and among the international community at the very serious situation faced by Colombian trade unionism. Everything possible should be done to put an end to assassinations and to promote respect for freedom of association. For all these reasons, the technical cooperation programme was an instrument which the ILO should reinforce.

The Worker member of Chile, upon affirming that for the workers respect for freedom of association was imperative as much in Chile as in Colombia, stated that it was clear that the violations of fundamental human rights of trade unionists were related to their trade union activities. War was an instrument used by different sectors in the country to weaken, neutralize and eliminate workers' organizations. Therefore, it was not surprising that the majority of violations of human rights of Colombian workers gained in intensity when negotiations to resolve labour conflicts were under way or terminated, meaning that these violations took place during the negotiation of documents and collective agreements or during national and local strikes. This situation was not the result of indiscriminate, irrational, uncalculated and casual violence; on the contrary, it was selective, discriminatory and calculated, and was aimed at trade union leaders and leaders of organizations which were involved at high levels of social intervention, and which had an important public presence and great capacity for political mobilization. This was the case, for example, of sectoral federations like Fecode, which played a predominant role in the elaboration of public policy, workers' federations with a great capacity for intervention and mobilization, and national unions such as Sinaltrainal, USO, Sintraelecol, amongst many others, which operated in strategic sectors of the national economy. The kidnappings, threats and assassinations of workers were strategies calculated to put an end to trade union organizations.

To illustrate the fact that the violence against trade unionists intensified in times of labour conflicts, the speaker mentioned the case of the "voluntary renouncement" of acquired rights in the collective agreement of workers in La Ceja Hospital in Eastern Antioquia affiliated with a National Association of Hospital and Clinic Workers (ANTHOC), after pressure had been exerted by paramilitary organizations. Another example was the threats directed at the union leaders of Sinaltrainal, which occurred during negotiations held with the Femsa Coca-Cola Company in May 2003, and the forced withdrawal, as a consequence of threats, of the negotiator chosen to represent this organization in its labour conflict with the transnational enterprise Nestlé-Cicolac in Valledupar in February 2003. He also pointed to the assassination of the president of the sub-directorate of Sintrainagro at the very moment when his organization had finished direct negotiations with the Palmas del Cesar company and was preparing to initiate a strike movement in this enterprise.

The speaker referred to other examples, such as the judgement against the leader of USO based on induced testimony and false evidence, the declaration of a USO strike as unlawful, and the dismissal of 248 workers and the militarization of labour conflicts. He also mentioned threats against trade unions affiliated with the CUT, the Teachers' Union of Risaralda, the Union of Drivers and the Street Vendors' Union. These cases were only a sample of the situation in question, which cast doubt on the position of the Government and employers, according to which the Government bore no direct responsibility for violations of workers' human rights because the armed conflict had stripped it of its capacity to control and regulate social life. These facts demonstrated that the war had been instrumentalized by sectors of the state and business to regulate strictly labour-related conflicts without resolving them. The Government had an obligation to put an end to this unbearable situation of impunity which constituted a major obstacle to the free exercise of trade union rights.

The Government member of Ireland spoke on behalf of the European Union. He indicated that the EFTA countries Iceland, Norway and Switzerland had aligned themselves with his statement. The EU wished to reaffirm its full support to the Colombian people and the Colombian Government in their efforts to bring about justice, social advancement and national reconciliation and tackle impunity and human rights violations. This year they were pleased to note the efforts of the Colombian Government to improve the human rights situation and the position of trade unionists in Colombia. They welcomed recent positive developments, including the adoption of a workplan to promote and encourage workers' rights, and the reported decrease in the number of deaths of trade unionists. While noting these recent positive developments, the EU wished, however, to reiterate its grave concern regarding the general climate of the constant violence that was present at all levels of Colombian society and the threat that such a situation represented for social dialogue and reconciliation. The EU strongly condemned the murders and kidnappings of trade union officials and members of the population. The EU expressed concern that the Colombian Government had not taken the necessary measures to amend legislation inconsistent with Convention No. 87. The EU stressed the importance of social dialogue and called on the Government to redouble its efforts in this area, and indeed its efforts to meet all its commitments under the Convention.

The Government member of Brazil stated that his Government was closely following developments in Colombia regarding freedom of association and, in this context, he welcomed the response made by the Colombian Vice-Minister which summarized the efforts deployed by her Government in order to stop the climate of violence that was prevailing in the country. He called upon the Committee to support the measures already taken by the Colombian Government to reinforce and stimulate social dialogue and, in this regard, account should be taken of the information provided by the Colombian Vice-Minister. It was equally important to consider the good results obtained in the framework of the technical cooperation programme undertaken by the ILO and Colombia which was meant to promote social dialogue and freedom of association and to harmonize the Colombian national legislation with international labour standards. The speaker was convinced that, with the constructive support of the ILO, the Colombian Government would continue to improve labour conditions in its territory in a manner that would enhance democratic institutions.

The Government member of Costa Rica pointed out that the acts of violence performed by the narco-terrorists did not discriminate either between rich landlords and trade unionists or between diplomats and politicians, young and old, children and women. No doubt, Colombia would be able to find a way out with the assistance of friendly States and international organizations, as well as through dialogue and reinforcement of democratic institutions.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom stated that in February he had visited the small town of Saravena which had been under total military control since November 2002. The armoured cars circling the union building where he met with local trade unionists and their families and the armed troops outside were, according to the army, for their own protection. When the army took over the town, half the adult population was rounded up and processed by the army in the football stadium. Families told him how their loved ones had been taken from their beds. At the stadium, circling the pitch, paid informers in cars with dark windows apparently pointed out the so-called dissidents (or those against whom they had a grudge). Of the hundreds arrested, some 40 were eventually sent to prisons far away. Arbitrary arrests in Saravena and throughout Arauca department were a daily occurrence. In the same area, the army and the paramilitaries patrolled together and had committed a further massacre of 13 campesinos just three weeks ago in Flor Amarillo and in Pinalto. All the opposition candidates in Saravena had been arrested before the October elections. A meeting with the local CUT leader was not possible because a warrant was out for his arrest.

He had also visited Bogota's two main prisons, including a closed wing of the women's prison, where 84 women were held in a space designed for 31. The overwhelming majority of the detainees were members of trade unions or community-based organizations. Of the 84 prisoners, more than 50 had either not been tried or in many cases even charged. Among them were women trade unionists arrested in Saravena in November 2002, imprisoned for 15 months without charge. Some arrest warrants had been "mislaid"; the women concerned had become non-persons with no record of their detention. He was pleased to hear that, soon after his visit, 11 members of the health workers' union had been released from the two prisons but only on bail.

Among the many victims of arbitrary detention was Luz Perly Cordoba, General-Secretary of the agricultural workers' union, FENSUAGRO, arrested on 18 February, after his meeting with her in Saravena. There was still no explanation for her detention. These were just some of the 7,000 political prisoner cases in Colombia. It was remarkable that a state apparently incapable of arresting and convicting the murderers of trade unionists over the past decade seemed adept at arresting and imprisoning so many of the potential victims. There was impunity for the murderers, and arbitrary detention for those who dared to oppose the neo-liberal, anti-union crusade of the regime and those wealthy and shadowy forces which supported it. The speaker recalled that at Ecopetrol, 43 workers had been confined to overcrowded, dirty offices, in separate cubicles facing the wall for six months of "behaviour and skills improvement", which was degrading, psychological torture and brainwashing. The programme was used to threaten other trade unionists at Ecopetrol.

Yet too many members of this Committee still insisted that this was a democracy fighting a war against terrorism rather than a government, backed by paramilitary terrorists, which was waging a war on democracy. The Government refused to implement two key UN recommendations on the ending of judicial power for the army and of maintenance of military intelligence files on trade union and NGO activists. Senior public officials continued to vilify trade union leaders, making them targets for the paramilitaries. The Committee could invite the Fiscalia General to explain the remarkable relationship this department, according to Human Rights Watch, now had with the paramilitary right.

He concluded that it was delusional to pretend that freedom of association in Colombia was improving. The opposite was true and this Committee had failed to recommend appropriate measures. All ratifying member States should be subject to impartial judgement regardless of their economic system or attitude to globalization. The fact that Colombia's Government was pursuing a neo-liberal economic model was no excuse to ignore its flagrant and persistent violations of freedom of association.

The Worker member of Swaziland, speaking on behalf of the workers of Africa, expressed his solidarity with Colombian workers and supported the requests made to this Committee, by the Worker members' spokespersons and by the Colombian Worker members.

The Government member of Canada reiterated Canada's support for the ILO special technical cooperation programme for Colombia. Her country believed in the power of social dialogue and supported the full implementation of appropriate legislative measures in line with the ILO recommendations related to the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. She was pleased that some components of this programme were being implemented in Colombia.

She noted the Government's report indicating that the number of violent acts against trade unionists had been somewhat reduced and that additional funds had been earmarked for the protection of trade unionists. She welcomed this indication that some progress was being made, and recognized that some measures had been taken by the Government against impunity. At the same time, the international community was anxious to see concrete results from these measures so that perpetrators of human rights violations were punished according to the seriousness of their crimes.

The situation of violence in Colombia was very complex; however, addressing the problem of impunity was crucial. The human rights situation for trade unionists in Colombia continued to be extremely difficult and called for urgent, transparent and decisive measures to address the problem.

The Worker member of Pakistan expressed the solidarity of workers from his country and called upon the Government of Colombia to improve the protection of rights of all workers, make the improvements in legislation called for by the Committee of Experts, and prosecute those responsible for violence against trade union members. He supported the request for the establishment of a Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission to deal with this matter.

The Government member of Mexico stated that the information provided by the Government representative of Colombia had not only provided a detailed reply to the comments of the Committee of Experts, but had also revealed a constructive attitude of the Government of Colombia which, every four months and every year, reported on the measures adopted and efforts made to guarantee the exercise of trade union rights provided for in Convention No. 87. Although the reported results might not have been fully satisfactory, the speaker acknowledged positive trends, despite the fact that there were discrepancies between Convention No. 87 and the national legislation. The Committee members were familiar with the difficult situation of violence in the country, which made the application of measures allowing the full exercise of trade union rights more difficult. The speaker pointed out that she shared the Worker members' concern that trade unionists continued to be victims of violence, though the violence did not concern exclusively trade unions, but affected all sectors of Colombian society. This situation required a political solution, which could not be found in this Committee.

The speaker considered, like in all the previous discussions of the case of Colombia, that the Special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia represented an ideal instrument for the ILO, within the limits of its mandate, the Government of Colombia, and the employers' and workers' organizations to reach in close collaboration a solution to the problems affecting Colombian workers.

The Government member of China noted the efforts undertaken by the Government of Colombia to improve social and economic policies and promote social dialogue in the country. She hoped the ILO would strengthen its technical cooperation with Colombia, and stressed that her country supported social dialogue as an alternative to violence. She stated that this case should not appear in a special paragraph in the report of this Committee.

The Government member of Denmark spoke on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. She expressed her support for the statement made by the Government member of Ireland on behalf of the European Union. The Governments for whom she spoke remain concerned and deeply disappointed that the Colombian Government had still not taken the necessary measures to amend in full the legislation which was inconsistent with Convention No. 87. She urged the Government to address this problem without delay. At the same time she recognized that legal reform was not in itself enough. It was crucial to press ahead with urgently needed socio-economic reforms, including an employment policy aimed at providing jobs in dignified and fair conditions.

She reiterated the request to the Colombian Government to cooperate constructively with the social partners to secure freedom of association. The Government needed to support social dialogue through effective labour market administration. She further noted with concern the persistent climate of violence in the country, and although the number of trade unionists killed had declined, the Colombian Government had to urgently strengthen the relevant institutions further in order to end the intolerable impunity which protected perpetrators. In this context she underlined the importance of the Colombian Government's pledge to protect civil society leaders, including trade unionists, that had been made at the international meeting on Colombia which was held in London last year.

After having taken into account the information given by the representative of the Government of Colombia, she could find no credible evidence that the situation had improved substantially. She underlined the support of the governments she represented for the work of the ILO and Colombia which could be strengthened, especially in regard to the ILO's cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and other institutions of the United Nations system. She urged all parties to enhance dialogue to find the necessary solutions.

The Government representative emphasized the importance for her country of the reinforcement of the technical cooperation programme which should receive adequate financial support and be operational as long as necessary, and of the guarantees of the freedom of association rights and of the tripartism. The Government undertook concrete actions aiming at combating impunity, including the organization of workshops with the participation of the Attorney-General and judges.

The speaker revealed the existing problems as regards the refusal of the victims' relatives to make declarations for fear of becoming victims of reprisals. Thus, a programme of victim protection had been launched, which helped certain people to leave the country. Besides, the regional round tables of social dialogue had been created with a view to reactivating social dialogue in the cities where the problem was particularly serious and where there was the biggest number of murders of trade unionists; agreements were signed for fighting against the evil of violence. Regarding the "behaviour and skills improvement" programme at Ecopetrol, the speaker recognized that certain workers had been mistreated, but due to the Government's intervention, the programme had been discontinued.

The speaker pointed out that, contrary to the views expressed by certain members of the Committee, terrorism was not a selective, but rather a generalized phenomenon. The Government was combating the guerilleros, as well as drug traffickers, and firmly refused any collaboration with the paramilitaries. The Attorney General was conducting all the relevant investigations.

The Worker members regretted that the Officers of the Committee could not agree on giving the floor to the World Organization against Torture (OMCT). It was also regrettable that the information provided by Colombia was not included in the report required under article 22 of the Constitution.

After having listened to all of the interventions, the Worker members wanted to stress certain points by way of conclusion. Firstly, the climate of the systematic anti-union violence and impunity continued to reign, resulting in an unacceptable state of affairs. Secondly, the violations to Convention No. 87 went beyond this violent climate. There was an anti-union climate which was demonstrated by certain practices and measures seriously affecting the exercise of freedom of association and, as the Committee of Experts had noted, the Colombian legislation continued to infringe upon the Convention even if the Government stated that it was a question of simple divergence of interpretation. In practice, the violations revolved around the following: the criminalization of union activities, particularly the right to strike, massive and abusive dismissal of workers who exercised their right to organize, restrictions to the right to strike, ignorance of the conventions on the part of those who were responsible for its implementation and other anti-union behaviour.

Last year, the Worker members had considered the situation to be sufficiently worrying for the conclusions to be taken up in a special paragraph. This year, the number of murders and the anti-union climate did not show the least tangible improvement in the situation as a whole. There was more than adequate reason to reproduce conclusions in a special paragraph and therefore it was regrettable that the Employer members had once again objected to it. Apart from practices and realities brought to the attention of all, it was important to recall that, in legal terms, no effect was given to the Convention. To ignore the illegal violations and to reject the proposal for a special paragraph in such a grave and serious situation as that of Colombia opened the door to the politicization of the Committee. The politicization of the work of this Committee was to be avoided at all costs since it provided a good justification for those who did not believe in the objectivity of the Commission's conclusions or considered that the Commission was only critical of those countries hostile to the established world neo-liberal order.

The Worker members stressed the need for reflecting on the aforementioned situation which risked to undermine the mission of the Committee which is to establish a dialogue with governments on violations observed. Having been confronted with the existing deadlock, it was indispensable to find other means and ways that would put an end to the confrontation and aggression towards the union movement so that the ILO could retrieve its credibility as an interlocutor in such serious situations as that of Colombia. The Office and the Governing Body had to pay particular attention to the situation in Colombia and the repeated failure to find a consensus to resolve outstanding issues. Consequently, the Worker members requested the Governing Body to send a Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission to Colombia.

The Employer members said that the Government had shown its readiness to collaborate closely with the ILO. It was essential for the Government to determine what measures were needed. For the Employer members the institutional framework for the persecution of crimes under the Penal Code had to be improved. While the Penal Code covered the crimes in question, the Government representative had indicated that problems in the investigation of crimes persisted. This was not surprising given the climate of violence which made it difficult for persons to testify in a credible manner. In its conclusions, the Committee should ask the Government to report in detail on matters raised during the discussion. They did not believe that placing this case in a special paragraph would be productive. They reiterated their objection to matters raised by the Worker members with regard to the right to strike.

The Worker members noted with regret that the idea of a Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission was not retained.

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Government representative, Vice-Minister of Labour Relations, and of the discussion which ensued. The Committee noted with great concern that the problems pending were extremely serious and related, in particular, to murders of trade union leaders and members, other acts of violence against trade unionists and the situation of impunity from which benefited the perpetrators. The Committee noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association had examined serious complaints concerning assassinations and acts of violence against trade unionists. The Committee observed that acts of violence also touched other sectors including employers, in particular through kidnapping. The Committee condemned once again all these acts of violence in the context of the dramatic situation of violence which was experienced by the country.

The Committee took note of the Government's declarations according to which the number of murders of trade unionists and other acts of violence had dropped and the authorities had adopted measures to protect trade unionists. The Committee also took note of the Work Plan of the Inter-Institutional Committee for the Prevention and Protection of the Human Rights of Workers and the functioning of the Special Committee to Promote Investigation into human rights violations. Nonetheless, the Committee expressed its deep concern with the still high number of victims.

The Committee recalled that workers' and employers' organizations could only exercise their activities freely and effectively in a climate devoid of violence and again requested the Government to guarantee the right to life and security and to reinforce urgently the necessary institutions in order to put an end to the situation of impunity, which was a serious obstacle to the exercise of the trade union rights protected by the Convention. The Committee pointed out, more generally, that the climate prevailing in the country was not favourable to the development of trade union activities.

As regards legal amendments requested by the Committee of Experts, the Committee noted that the Government was open for the dialogue with the ILO on the legal issues pending and was convinced that the exchange of points of view on the comments made by the Committee of Experts would allow to find alternatives and to overcome discrepancies mentioned by the said Committee. The Committee once again urged the Government to immediately take the necessary measures in order to guarantee the full implementation of the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to send a detailed report for the examination by the Committee of Experts at its next session, so as to enable it to assess the development of the situation, including a reply to comments submitted by the trade union organizations. The Committee expressed the firm hope that, in the nearest future, a tangible progress could be noted, with the help of the Technical Cooperation Programme whose financial resources should be reinforced, particularly in overcoming all the obstacles to the full exercise of the freedom of association, so that the trade union organizations could exercise the rights guaranteed by the Convention in the climate of full security free from threats and fear. The Committee emphasized the importance of reaching these objectives through social dialogue and cooperation.

The Worker members noted with regret that the idea of a Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission was not retained.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2003, Publication: 91st ILC session (2003)

A Government representative said that this was the first meeting of the Committee that he had attended and he hoped to establish a sincere and direct communication making it possible to identify problems so that they could be resolved. With reference to Convention No. 87, he noted that of the 141 States which had ratified the Convention, the cases of 97 had been covered by the reports of the Committee of Experts. In the case of Colombia, the Committee of Experts had been making comments since the beginning of the 1990s. Some 20 discrepancies had been identified between the Convention and the national legislation. Subsequently, following the adoption of Act No. 50, the number of discrepancies had fallen to 13, as recognized by the Committee of Experts in 1994. With the technical assistance of the ILO and the direct contacts mission in 2000, Act No. 584 of the same year had been approved, resulting once again in recognition of the progress made by the Committee of Experts. There currently remained only three aspects to resolve. Nevertheless, he added that the case of Colombia had been on the ILO's agenda for many years in view of the violence perpetrated against the trade union movement. He expressed the intention of demonstrating the positive results of government action. While during the first five months of 2002 there had been 86 murders of trade unionists, over the same period this year the figure had fallen to 14, which amounted to a reduction of 84 per cent. He expressed the Government's conviction of the need to combat violence constantly, irrespective of its origins. For this purpose, the Democratic Security Programme was being carried out in parallel with the protection programme of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, both intended for the protection of persons at risk. The Democratic Security Programme was currently endowed with more resources, which had made it possible to adopt 1,357 security measures. This, combined with sincere and direct cooperation with the trade unions, had contributed to the achievement of the above results. However, he recalled that violence in Colombia affected priests and bishops, mayors and governors, ministers and former ministers, boys and girls, entrepreneurs and workers, whether or not they were unionized. He expressed his commitment to fight for a solution to this complex and difficult problem. He also wished to refer to the means of resolving the problem. For this purpose, the Members of the ILO had proposed two alternatives: on the one hand, the Special Technical Cooperation Programme, and on the other, the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. With regard to the Special Technical Cooperation Programme, he emphasized that it needed to be supported, strengthened and improved. In his view, this should be considered the real solution and he believed that supporting and financing the programme would contribute to resolving the problems in his country. He emphasized the need to change the approach and analysis of the problems through real and effective collaboration.

With regard to the Commission of Inquiry, he said that, in his view, if such a Commission had been sent to Colombia some years ago, the number of trade unionists who had died would not have changed. A Commission of Inquiry was not a real solution to the problem. Indeed, he believed that it complicated analysis and diverted attention from the real problem, thereby putting off and delaying its resolution. He emphasized that for five years this subject had been discussed regularly every four months, thereby preventing workers, employers and the Government from putting forward alternative solutions. He believed that much progress would have been made if action had been taken rather than words. Moreover, discussing poverty in Geneva was very different from experiencing it and suffering it in his country. There were grounds for wondering whether some people did not prefer to keep discussing the "Colombian problem" rather than committing themselves to resolving it. It was necessary to reflect upon the real contribution of the discussion to benefiting workers and employers. In any case, the prime responsibility for seeking a solution lay with Colombians.

He called upon the trade union leaders in his country to change their attitudes, although he recognized that this required courage and political sacrifices, and that it involved thinking of the country and of those who had died in the hope of preventing future deaths by working together. He reiterated his conviction that the real solution for Colombia lay in cooperation programmes rather than a Commission of Inquiry or a Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission. He hoped that words, analyses and recommendations would be transformed into effective action and assistance for his country. Colombia more than ever needed strong and democratic trade unions which ceased to be sectarian and sought to become participatory. He called upon NGOs, governments and multilateral organizations to provide all the necessary support to trade unions so that workers, employers and governments understood that change was necessary in the new globalized world. Finally, he expressed concern at the processing of information by the Office.

The Worker members stressed that Colombia was once again on the list of cases to be examined before this Conference because of the situation regarding freedom of association and the protection of union rights in the country. They recalled that the Committee of Experts once again pointed out profound discrepancies between Convention No. 87 and national legislation. Federations and confederations still did not have the right to strike. Striking continued to be prohibited in non-essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Labour Minister continued to assume the right to impose the use of arbitration whenever he judged that a conflict had lasted too long.

On a more practical level, the Worker members recalled that they had been continuously denouncing the numerous infringements of freedom of association: the reduction in the number of trade unions, the prevailing violence in particular against unionists, the various obstacles to the legitimate exercise of the right to strike and the complicity of public authorities and paramilitary organizations against strikers, the total impunity regarding the perpetrators of assassinations, and, finally, the lack of implementation of the recommendations made by the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Worker members noted the various initiatives announced by the Government concerning institutions, but considered that the Minister of Labour was the main authority of a country responsible for enforcing respect for the principles of Convention No. 87. The combining, however, of the Ministry of Labour with the Ministry of Health in Colombia did not appear to be conducive to this goal. The Worker members believed that the persistence of a climate of violence, and especially of the total impunity for the crimes perpetrated against unionists, reflected the crude and cruel reality of Colombia, but also the true position of the Government in matters of protection of union rights. In a situation in which these rights were so flagrantly trampled, the Worker members expressed their wish that the conclusions of this case be included in a special paragraph of the report. They also recommended that the Governing Body appoint a Commission of Inquiry, which was the only body which could, in the view of the Worker members, help change the situation and achieve harmony between labour legislation and the Convention, as well as promote a genuine respect for the principles of freedom of association in practice.

The Employer members, recalling that the case of Colombia had been on the agenda of the Conference Committee for some time, noted that the observation of the Committee of Experts contained two main elements: comments on legal provisions and on the violence prevailing in the country. With regard to the legal provisions, the Employer members noted that the number of provisions mentioned by the Committee of Experts had diminished considerably over the years. For well-known reasons, they did not support the views of the Committee of Experts on the remaining three provisions on the right to strike, which, in their view, was not contained in Convention No. 87. They believed that most of the countries called before the Committee concerning this Convention had much more serious problems with regard to their labour laws. The reason why Colombia had been invited for a discussion in the Conference Committee was rather related to the second part of the Committee of Experts' observation dealing with the problem of continuing and widespread violence which was at the core of the current situation. The phenomenon of violence and counter-violence was going far beyond the issue of freedom of association and labour legislation. Stressing that kidnappings, death threats and murder were most serious criminal offences destabilizing society, the Employer members expressed their deep regret for every single victim. However, the current situation was not due to the existence of some legal provisions. The situation was far more complex; cause and effect should not be confused.

In 2002, the Committee received a credible commitment to combat violence from the then Minister of Labour of Colombia, himself a trade unionist, and the statement made by the Government representative this year was credible as well. The reported decrease in the number of murders was noted, but every remaining victim was to be regretted. It was hoped that the measures taken to improve the security situation would soon show results. The ILO Special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia should be continued and intensified. It was important that the Conference Committee would bear in mind the political environment in the country and that it should strengthen the position of the Government that undertook to combat violence. Anything else would play into the hands of the perpetrators of violent acts. The Government should be urged to reinforce its efforts, particularly with regard to impunity.

A Worker member of Colombia stated that he had listened carefully and with great respect to the information provided by the Government. His intention was not to weaken the Government but to find solutions. Referring to the concerns of the Committee of Experts reflected in its observation, the speaker recalled that the Ministry of Labour had disappeared in Colombia as a result of restructuring: the combining of the Ministry of Labour with that of Health had had a negative impact on health, labour and social security policies. Structural adjustment policies led to the disappearance of trade unions.

The speaker explained that the Government negotiated with the financial sector, which had led to privatization of key sectors of the economy, including the oil industry and telecommunications. The poorest sectors suffered from the impact of labour, pension and tax reforms. Dismissals and unemployment were on the rise - in such circumstances the Minister should not authorize the dismissal of workers.

The speaker also expressed his concern about the statements of the President of the Republic on 4 June 2003, which suggested that the relevant provisions of international Conventions could be used in order to denounce them. The Colombian employers should adopt a new type of labour culture, one which respects union activities. In conclusion, the speaker suggested that the Government should consider the appointment of a commission of inquiry as a positive step given that it might contribute to solving the problems at hand.

Another Worker member of Colombia stated that violations against the fundamental human rights of workers persisted, and threats, forced displacements and the intimidation of union leaders continued. Such violations interfered with the full exercise of freedom of association. The speaker pointed out that the reduction in the number of assassinations of unionists did not imply that there had been progress. He denounced the murder of 121 unionists as of June 2002 and the situation of generalized impunity, which implicated the Government. The speaker also referred to the statements of the President of Colombia on 4 June 2003 on the possible denouncing of international treaties and Conventions and emphasized that no country had the right to ignore the fundamental rights of workers and much less justify itself in doing so by means of an alleged popular mandate. In conclusion, he demanded greater political will on behalf of the Government to halt the anti-union climate and clear commitments by the Government to refrain from abrogating the fundamental rights of workers. He requested the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry and the inclusion of a special paragraph on Colombia in the Committee's report.

Another Worker member of Colombia agreed with the previous speakers, which showed there was a common sentiment among the Colombian trade union movement. The speaker recommended that the Conference Committee took the following steps: (1) urge the Government to immediately enforce the international Conventions it had ratified, according to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, and in particular Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 151 and 154; (2) require the Government to revoke the power to declare strikes illegal from the executive power, and vest this power in the judiciary; (3) request the Government to refrain from adopting or amending legislation, including reforms to the Constitution, which are contrary to its international obligations, in both labour rights and human rights; (4) request the Government to comply with the recommendations of the supervisory bodies of the ILO and, in particular, with paragraph 506 of the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, which had been delivered to the Governing Body in March 2003; (5) exhort the Government to strengthen its programme for protection of trade unionists by implementing the recommendations of the above report; and, finally, (6) require the Government to empower the Inter-Institutional Committee for the Promotion and Protection of the Human Rights of Workers by providing them with the resources necessary for them to implement the plan which had already been approved for 2003.

The speaker emphasized the need to follow up the complaint against the Government of Colombia and to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, the ideal mechanism available to the international community to contribute to solving the serious problems raised in the complaint. It requested that this issue be taken up at the next sitting of the Governing Body. It endorsed the request for the Committee to dedicate a special paragraph to the non-compliance of Convention No. 87.

Finally, the speaker explained that, on 4 June 2003, at a hearing in the Constitutional Court of Colombia, called to define the constitutionality of a law which would call for a referendum on constitutional reform, the President of the Republic stated that Conventions were not eternal and that, in the event that the population approved, by referendum, legislation contrary to the ILO Conventions, then he would take this as an indication that the people were mandating him to denounce the Convention. This, according to the speaker, meant that the incompatibility between national law and the fundamental right to collective bargaining could possibly lead to the denunciation of an international Convention and challenged the Government's claim that it respected the fundamental principles and rights enshrined in ILO Conventions.

The Worker member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Worker members of the Nordic countries, stressed that Colombia was still the most dangerous country in the world for workers who wished to organize. Over 90 per cent of the unionists killed each year had been killed in Colombia, with 184 alone in 2002. During the first half of 2003 the Government, police and the military had been responsible for an increasing number of human rights violations against labour activists, including violence against women unionists which had increased by 50 per cent. In the last months the paramilitary had been targeting families of unionists, and Carlos Castaño, the leader of a paramilitary organization, had publicly announced that the children of the leaders of the oil workers' union USO would be killed. As evidence of this the speaker cited two kidnapping attempts of the daughter of the head of the human rights office of the national organization CUT.

The speaker stated that the Government's protection programme for unionists was not functional, due to lack of funds, excessive time spent on processing requests for protection and a paucity of labour inspectors - only 271 to cover more than 300,000 companies in 1,097 municipalities. The dismissal and blacklisting of union leaders was commonplace. Furthermore, Colombian law was in violation of Convention No. 87 and favoured non-union workers over unionized workers by allowing non-union workers and employers to sign "collective agreements". Workers' rights were further threatened by the proposed referendum concerning labour law, which would eliminate Sunday and holiday benefits, cut severance pay, freeze wages in the public sector and make the labour force more flexible. The speaker urged the Committee to demand that Colombia be included in a special paragraph and that the Governing Body appoint a Commission of Inquiry to be sent to the country.

The Worker member of the United States stated that this was the case which was the greatest challenge to the Committee, as the violations of the Convention by Colombia challenged the authority of the ILO. If the Committee and the Governing Body would not act effectively and resolutely, the institutional integrity of the ILO would be compromised. More trade unionists were killed in Colombia than in all other countries combined (184 during 2002 and over 1,900 since 1991). He deplored the argument made by the Government representative that the situation was getting better as there was a relative decrease of homicides in the first quarter of 2003. The relative increase in assaults, death threats, kidnappings and unjustified detentions and the 32 assassinations this year were no accomplishment. The speaker also rejected the argument that the Government could escape its responsibility under the Convention since the human rights violations suffered by trade unionists were the consequence of a general climate of violence that affected all segments of society. This argument fell apart for several reasons. Firstly, there were a high number of offences committed against unionists and there were sectoral concentrations of offences, as well as direct linkages to collective bargaining. Secondly, the Government was responsible for the assassinations because paramilitary groups operated with the open support and tolerance of the armed forces. Thirdly, the Government was directly responsible because of acts of omission and commission related to the protection of trade unionists and the entire issue of impunity. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had publicly expressed concerns over the delays in the funding of the Government's Programme for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Trade Unionists, which had a direct impact on effective implementation of security measures. The speaker also recalled that according to the Committee of Experts there were still no convictions of those responsible for assassinations. The Attorney-General of Colombia was known to have derailed key human rights prosecutions.

The conclusions adopted by the Conference Committee in 2002 provided that in the event that the Government did not fully avail itself of technical cooperation programmes, the Committee would be obliged to consider stronger possibilities. According to the three Colombian union centrals, the ILO Special Technical Cooperation Programme had never been fully implemented and neither the Government nor the Colombian entrepreneurs had shown a real engagement with the programme. Accordingly, the speaker joined with the Worker members in calling for a special paragraph in this case.

The Worker member of Indonesia expressed serious concern at the extreme violence against trade unionists in Colombia, as well as the interference by the Government in trade union affairs. He supported the proposals made by other Worker members in order to promote peace, social justice and respect for Convention No. 87 in Colombia.

The Worker member of Mexico recalled that the Worker members attending the 86th Session of the Conference held in June 1998 had submitted a request, by virtue of article 26 of the ILO Constitution, invoking the violation by Colombia of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. He pointed out that the violation of the above Conventions was due to the responsibility of the State for the actions of government agencies and for having failed to safeguard and protect fundamental rights. The Government continued to publicly assault freedom of association of the trade union movement, through its mass media, and claimed that the trade union movement was responsible for the economic crises undergone by the private and public sectors. Furthermore, the Government had set up mandatory arbitration tribunals to resolve collective conflicts with employers in charge of non-essential services. He added that the administrative authority had the power to qualify the legality of the strikes - recently, it had declared illegal a strike that took place in the banana sector.

The speaker highlighted the violations relating to the Trade Union of the Telephone Company of Bogotá, in an attempt against privatization, when massive dismissals occurred, and trade union leaders were threatened in addition to the violation of Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 135 and 154. He further indicated that the Government had convened a mandatory arbitration tribunal, violating thereby the collective agreement and Convention No. 154. He added that the Government intended to restructure a company of the petroleum sector to eradicate the right to freedom of association, contrary to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Furthermore, the trade union leaders of oil refineries were prohibited from access on account of their militant attitude in industrial plants, which led to a lockout. The Trade Union of Bavaria (SINALTRABVARIA) indicated the annulment of contracts of more than 40 trade union leaders, resulting in unilateral dismissals without a just cause. The collective agreement which was imposed through this intimidation attacked the trade union organization. Thus, in the span of three years, trade union membership decreased from 3,500 members to 300. The speaker joined other speakers in requesting a special paragraph on this case, and exhorted the Government to prevent the attacks on the lives and integrity of trade union leaders and workers.

The Worker member of Côte d'Ivoire expressed his profound concern at the delay in approving the setting up of a Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission. He indicated that labour legislation continued to violate many provisions of Convention No. 87: the number of trade unions continued to decrease; trade union leaders were subjected to programmed dismissals; and militants received death threats. The ILO could act. It could encourage the creation of decent jobs and help save human lives in Colombia. In view of the violence, the liberalization of social legislation and the assaults made on trade union freedoms, the least one could do was to endorse the proposal of a Commission of Inquiry in Colombia.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom stated that the TUC paid close attention to the grave situation in Colombia and had developed close relations with the national confederations. It would soon launch a scheme to provide temporary respite to Colombian trade unionists in danger of assassination. Colombian working people had a desire for a social, democratic and peaceful Colombia, but everyone who spoke out for that alternative was in danger. It was true that unionists were not the only victims, but just as journalists were murdered for writing the truth or prosecutors when they investigated political assassinations, trade union leaders and members were murdered precisely because they worked to represent the interests of Colombian working people. All victims had in common that they represented an alternative peaceful and social model for the country, a society based on dialogue and progress through democratic participation.

The speaker deplored that the ILO had been prevented from taking the necessary measures to support Colombia in dealing with the impunity. It was of little comfort for the families of the 32 colleagues murdered this year that the number of murders of trade unionists was falling. Primarily because the Colombian employers had blocked consensus in the Employers' group, the Governing Body had failed to agree on a Commission of Inquiry to do the job the Colombian State had failed to do. Not even agreement on a special paragraph last year or on a Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission could be found, while 184 trade unionists had been murdered. According to the speaker, this was because there were too many companies implicated in the violence and repression and because governments also guilty of serious violations of fundamental ILO Conventions feared to be next. In addition, some governments believed the claims that Colombia remained a fully functioning democracy, a view not shared by the speaker. If Colombia was to be a functioning democracy it needed peace, and to achieve peace it must break the cycle of impunity. As the State had proven itself incapable of doing so unaided, that task still needed the support of a Commission of Inquiry. Stating that those who preferred repression and violence to dialogue and compromise benefited from the ILO's inaction, the speaker noted that 15 families controlled Colombia's capital. However, the ILO should put the interests of the working people, free thinking people, democratic and peace loving people, the poor and the unemployed, the socially excluded and the displaced before the interests of the elites who had been responsible for the disaster for decades.

The Government member of the United States stated that her Government was deeply concerned about the violence against trade unionists in Colombia and that it supported efforts to find solutions, including the ILO's Special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia. It was urgently important to protect the lives of trade unionists, to promote social dialogue, to combat impunity, and to bring Colombia's labour legislation and its implementation fully into conformity with the Convention. Her Government believed that the Government of Colombia was committed to restoring the rule of law and to ensuring that all members of society could exercise their rights under conditions in which personal safety was guaranteed. There were indications that efforts to implement that commitment were beginning to meet with some successes, but much more needed to be done. The Government of Colombia was urged to continue to cooperate with the ILO and to implement without delay the recommendations of the Committee of Experts.

The Government member of Mexico stated that the information supplied by the Minister of Labour had not only provided a detailed reply to the comments of the Committee of Experts but had also revealed the constructive attitude of the Government which every four months and every year reported on the measures adopted and the efforts made in order to guarantee the exercise of trade union rights in conformity with Convention No. 87. Although the results might have not fully met the Committee's wishes, the speaker acknowledged the positive trends presented by the Government representative. The speaker also noted that the domestic situation in Colombia was well known, which was an obstacle to the implementation of measures for the full enjoyment of trade union rights. While she shared the concerns of the Worker members on the victims of violence, she associated herself with the point of view of the Government representative that violence did not concern exclusively trade unionists but affected all sectors of Colombian society. The speaker considered that the Special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia represented an ideal instrument for the ILO to reach a solution to the problems affecting workers in Colombia in the framework of its competence and in close collaboration with the Government and workers' and employers' organizations. The speaker concluded by affirming that her delegation considered that a Commission of Inquiry would not be appropriate at this moment since the Special Technical Cooperation Programme was in the process of being implemented and had begun to produce results, thanks to the financial resources provided by the ILO and other donors as well as the obvious willingness of the Government to implement this project.

The Government member of Denmark, also speaking on behalf of the Government members of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, regretted that the Government had failed to adopt the draft legislation prepared by the direct contacts mission in February 2000. This called into question the will and ability of the Colombian authorities to make significant progress to safeguard trade union leaders' rights to life, physical safety and freedom of association. The Nordic countries continued to monitor closely the implementation of the ILO's special cooperation programme for Colombia and recognized the important role the ILO could play. She regretted that the Governing Body had to deal with new and serious allegations of violence, as reported in Case No. 1787 of the Committee on Freedom of Association, while, at the same time, acknowledging a certain progress in the last year. But still, 14 trade unionists killed were 14 too many. She firmly condemned the continuous murders and kidnappings of officials and members of trade unions and urged the Government to take every possible measure to change the situation of impunity that the perpetrators of these violations enjoyed, in line with the recommendations of the June 2002 report of the Committee on Freedom of Association. She endorsed the suggestion, to have the case mentioned in a special paragraph.

The Government member of the Dominican Republic expressed great distress at the assassinations of trade unionists and other Colombian citizens. He recalled that the case had been discussed by the Conference Committee on several occasions and that the Government continued to indicate its interest in putting an end to the violation of Convention No. 87 by informing the Committee of the efforts deployed to resolve the situation. He stressed the importance that the ILO continue to strengthen the Special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia as he considered it as a vital measure which would resolve the problem prevailing in Colombia.

The Government member of Germany took note of the statement made by the Government representative and stated that the situation with regard to violence committed against trade union leaders and members was still very serious. He understood why the Worker members perceived the information on the decrease of assassinations as cynical. However, he also noted that the Government representative had expressed his sincere regrets for every victim. With regard to the problem of impunity, he pointed out that there was no law providing that perpetrators of crimes against trade unionists should not be punished. Impunity was rather a problem in practice that had several causes, such as the intimidation of judges. Noting that several speakers had requested the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry, he stated that this question was not within the Conference Committee's competence. To conclude, he expressed his view that the Committee should take into account the clearly different attitude of the Government representative in comparison to that of the Government representative of Belarus discussed earlier, and as a result, the Committee should not reach the same conclusions.

The Government member of Chile welcomed the information presented by the Government member of Colombia. He shared the concern and preoccupation with regard to the situation in Colombia, as had been expressed by the group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC). The speaker indicted that the Special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia was the best contribution that could be made to ensure the application of Convention No. 87 in the country.

The Government member of Uruguay highlighted the importance of the information supplied to the Conference Committee by the Minister. The speaker was of the view that it was equally important to take note of the progress made, whilst bearing in mind the complexity of the situation. Cooperation with the ILO played a fundamental role in reaching real solutions to the difficult situation in Colombia.

The Government member of Peru (Vice-Minister of Employment Promotion), expressed his support for the society and the Government of Colombia with regard to the general violence, and the loss of Colombian lives from all social classes. The speaker outlined the priority attached by the Government to the protection of trade union leaders to whom large resources were allocated for their protection. It was necessary to strengthen the Special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia undertaken by the ILO to give an impetus to the mobilization of the entire society in support of peace.

The Government member of Italy stated that the situation in Colombia was particularly preoccupying. He was of the view that it was not appropriate to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. He indicated that strengthening the technical cooperation programme with the ILO would be preferable. He equally recommended that clarifications be made with respect to the provisions of the legislation of Colombia on the right to strike in the public sector.

The Government member of Canada deplored the continuing serious situation in Colombia, while recognizing that the Government had achieved some progress in reducing violence against trade unionists over the past year. The Government was urged not to use emergency measures as an instrument to threaten and harass trade unionists, and to avoid accusations of subversive activity that de-legitimize trade union activity and expose trade unionists to attack. The Government should establish and strengthen the relevant institutions to end impunity. Failing to ensure full and impartial investigations perpetuated the violence. Further, the speaker urged the Government to bring the legislation into line with international labour standards and ensure its full implementation. She supported the ILO Special Technical Cooperation Programme, as social dialogue and appropriate legislative measures would promote social peace and she urged the Government of Colombia to cooperate fully with the ILO.

The Government representative stated that he had listened carefully to all the interesting and enriching interventions made during the discussion. Many of the interventions had to be interpreted in light of the information each one of the speakers was in a position to obtain and evaluate. In this respect, the speaker pointed out that a number of the interventions had referred to the convening of mandatory arbitration proceedings. The speaker indicated that the number of conflicts submitted to mandatory arbitration had indeed increased, but that their purpose was precisely to reduce the direct interference of the administration in the solution of conflicts. Those who had been most interested in these types of mandatory arbitration were the workers: of 50 compulsory arbitration proceedings, 47 had been at the request of the workers, and the Ministry had simply approved their request. The speaker suggested that the information, which the social partners wished to submit to the ILO, be organized in a way as to find constructive solutions to the problems.

The Government representative shared the deep concern about the violence in Colombia. His Government was making serious efforts to curtail the acts of violence against unionists. He pointed out that the budget allocated to the protection of unionists was 15 times higher than that allocated to the protection of judges. Taking into account the efforts made regarding security issues, he was confident that the progress observed in the last year would continue.

The speaker also reminded the Committee of the assassinations of and violence against politicians that had occurred in Colombia: the father of the President of the Republic had been assassinated, the Vice-President had been kidnapped, as well as relatives of the Minister of Education and the Minister of Culture. The list of civil servants, including judges, who had been targets of violence was considerable.

Regarding the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning pending legislative amendments, the Government representative pointed out that the number of discrepancies had been gradually reduced from 20 to 13 and that three legal issues were pending.

The Government representative emphasized that his Government was fully committed to the ILO and had great expectations for the strengthening of technical cooperation programmes. The Government was grateful to the Employer and Worker sectors, in spite of their differences, for the confidence they shared in the potential of Colombia, and entreated all to join forces so that future generations would inherit a better country.

The Worker members were of the view that their analysis had been quite clear and that their legal reasoning was sufficiently developed for their voices to be heard. They underlined that spokespersons of quality were needed for the establishment of continued social dialogue, but they stressed that it was of utmost importance to keep those spokespersons alive. The Worker members recalled that they had repeatedly denounced the fact that labour legislation was not in conformity with Convention No. 87, which was further aggravated by the adoption of new legislation, which was particularly retrogressive. In practice, a retreat in trade unionism was noted in Colombia: persistent attacks on trade union freedoms; obstacles to collective bargaining; continued violence affecting the trade union movement in particular, and a gross impunity of crimes committed against workers. Whilst fully aware that the decision with regard to a Commission of Inquiry was not up to the Conference Committee, the Worker members requested the immediate discussion by the Governing Body of the proposal to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for Colombia and stressed the importance of ensuring that all efforts be made aimed at reaching the acceptance of this proposal. They expressed the view that a Commission of Inquiry rather than technical cooperation was the only measure that would lead to an improvement of the situation. Finally, they requested that the conclusions reached on the case be inscribed in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

The Employer members stated that improvements in several areas were necessary in the present case, mainly with regard to the prevailing violence, which was at the core of the problem. In particular, the issue of impunity needed to be addressed, a problem of practice and not of law which had many causes. The Employer members supported neither the proposal to include a special paragraph in the report of the Conference Committee nor the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry by the Governing Body in order not to weaken the position of the Government in solving the problem of violence.

The Worker members wished to stress two points. First, they did not consider it appropriate to mention in the conclusions that various views had been expressed with respect to the measures to be proposed to the Governing Body and they considered that the Commission of Inquiry remained the only measure to put an end to the climate of violence in the country. Furthermore, the reticence of the Employer members to firmly condemn the situation, which had damaging effects for trade unions as for employers, seemed to be incomprehensible, mostly in view of the gravity of this case in comparison with other cases, where the use of a special paragraph had been made. They expressed in the most unequivocal terms that the ILO could not have double standards.

The Employer members again emphasized that they did not support the proposals of a special paragraph, nor the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry by the Governing Body, because they believed that technical cooperation was the better instrument to attain the objectives. They reiterated that their position could not have come as a surprise, as the Employer members had already expressed this view the year before. The situation could not simply be improved by changing laws, but was much broader and the ILO's Special Technical Cooperation Programme should be supported.

Following the adoption of the conclusions on the application of Convention No. 87 in Colombia, the Worker members wished to make a statement and asked that this be transmitted to the Director-General and included in the report as an explanation of their support, in a spirit of cooperation proper to this tripartite body, of the conclusions on the case discussed.

The Worker members remained convinced that it would have been appropriate, despite the statements made by the Government representative, if the Governing Body could have asked the Office to establish a Commission of Inquiry in Colombia. This was not meant as an act of hostility towards the Government but as a reflection of a profound concern about the impunity, the violence and the assassinations that militants and trade union leaders were victims of. It was deplorable that the politicization of this case had led to the acceptance of the fact that the continuous loss of lives of people, including those of trade unionists, had become an ordinary point on the agenda of this Committee every year. It should be clear that it would never become an ordinary agenda item on this Committee for the Worker members.

The Worker members deeply regretted that the adopted conclusions were not taken up in a special paragraph. With such conclusions, it seemed that double standards were being used, undermining the moral authority of this Committee and the supervisory system. The fact that this was actually a barely hidden objective for some only aggravated the incapacity of this Committee to judge in this case. The continuous failure to implement the Convention was the absence of the adoption of adequate measures to guarantee respect for elementary freedoms, such as the right to life, which were sine qua non for freedom of association. This was a case of continuous failure that had cost the lives of hundreds of people per year and affected thousands of others in their professional lives.

The Worker members welcomed the commitment of all those trade unionists but also the employers concerned about the production of goods and services respectful of social rights, civil servants and politicians, who continued to fight against the violence and the impunity, and in favour of freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to strike. A special paragraph would have been, rightly so, an encouragement and an act of solidarity with those who were fighting on a daily basis in their own area for another kind of world. This other kind of world remained possible but, without doubt, it should have been stated more loudly.

The Employer members noted the views of the Worker members. They said that they stood by their earlier statement and considered that some concrete proposals made during the discussions of the day before were not useful in helping the Government of Colombia in its efforts to improve the situation. They were convinced that the steps the Employers had proposed were more appropriate in the situation.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion which followed. The Committee noted that the comments made by the Committee stressed the very large number of assassinations of and acts of violence against unionists and the absence of prosecution of their perpetrators on the one hand, and specific legal infringements to the right of workers organizations to freely exercise their activities, on the other. The Committee noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association had examined the complaints concerning assassinations and acts of violence against unionists. The Committee noted with deep concern the dramatic situation of violence.

The Committee firmly condemned once again the assassination and abduction of unionists and the abduction of workers and employers, and recalled that workers' and employers' organizations could only exercise their activities freely and effectively in a climate devoid of violence. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government once again to reinforce the necessary institutions in order to put an end to the situation of impunity, which is a serious obstacle to the free exercise of the freedom of association guaranteed by the Convention.

The Committee urged the Government to immediately take the necessary measures to put an end to this situation of insecurity so that workers' and employers' organizations could fully exercise the rights they are entitled to under the Convention, by restoring respect for fundamental human rights, in particular the right to life and security.

Noting the complaint filed in June 1998 under article 26 of the ILO Constitution, which referred in particular to the climate of violence against unionists, the Committee expressed the hope that the Governing Body would take the appropriate measures - as to the nature of which various opinions were expressed - in order to contribute to restoring a climate of non-violence which is a prerequisite for the full exercise of freedom of association.

The Committee addressed an urgent call to the Government to immediately take the measures necessary to guarantee the full implementation of the Convention in both law and practice. The Committee requested the Government to provide a detailed report, including an exhaustive reply to the comments made by trade unions, so that the Committee of Experts could once again examine the situation at its next meeting, and expressed the hope that it would be able to observe tangible progress in the very near future.

The Worker members wished to stress two points. First, they did not consider it appropriate to mention in the conclusions that various views had been expressed with respect to the measures to be proposed to the Governing Body and they considered that the Commission of Inquiry remained the only measure to put an end to the climate of violence in the country. Furthermore, the reticence of the Employer members to firmly condemn the situation, which had damaging effects for trade unions as for employers, seemed to be incomprehensible, mostly in view of the gravity of this case in comparison with other cases, where the use of a special paragraph had been made. They expressed in the most unequivocal terms that the ILO could not have double standards.

The Employer members again emphasized that they did not support the proposals of a special paragraph, nor the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry by the Governing Body, because they believed that technical cooperation was the better instrument to attain the objectives. They reiterated that their position could not have come as a surprise, as the Employer members had already expressed this view the year before. The situation could not simply be improved by changing laws, but was much broader and the ILO's Special Technical Cooperation Programme should be supported.

Following the adoption of the conclusions on the application of Convention No. 87 in Colombia, the Worker members wished to make a statement and asked that this be transmitted to the Director-General and included in the report as an explanation of their support, in a spirit of cooperation proper to this tripartite body, of the conclusions on the case discussed.

The Worker members remained convinced that it would have been appropriate, despite the statements made by the Government representative, if the Governing Body could have asked the Office to establish a Commission of Inquiry in Colombia. This was not meant as an act of hostility towards the Government but as a reflection of a profound concern about the impunity, the violence and the assassinations that militants and trade union leaders were victims of. It was deplorable that the politicization of this case had led to the acceptance of the fact that the continuous loss of lives of people, including those of trade unionists, had become an ordinary point on the agenda of this Committee every year. It should be clear that it would never become an ordinary agenda item on this Committee for the Worker members.

The Worker members deeply regretted that the adopted conclusions were not taken up in a special paragraph. With such conclusions, it seemed that double standards were being used, undermining the moral authority of this Committee and the supervisory system. The fact that this was actually a barely hidden objective for some only aggravated the incapacity of this Committee to judge in this case. The continuous failure to implement the Convention was the absence of the adoption of adequate measures to guarantee respect for elementary freedoms, such as the right to life, which were sine qua non for freedom of association. This was a case of continuous failure that had cost the lives of hundreds of people per year and affected thousands of others in their professional lives.

The Worker members welcomed the commitment of all those trade unionists but also the employers concerned about the production of goods and services respectful of social rights, civil servants and politicians, who continued to fight against the violence and the impunity, and in favour of freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to strike. A special paragraph would have been, rightly so, an encouragement and an act of solidarity with those who were fighting on a daily basis in their own area for another kind of world. This other kind of world remained possible but, without doubt, it should have been stated more loudly.

The Employer members noted the views of the Worker members. They said that they stood by their earlier statement and considered that some concrete proposals made during the discussions of the day before were not useful in helping the Government of Colombia in its efforts to improve the situation. They were convinced that the steps the Employers had proposed were more appropriate in the situation.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2002, Publication: 90th ILC session (2002)

A Government representative, Minister of Labour and Social Security, indicated in respect of bringing Colombian labour legislation into conformity with the ILO Conventions that Act No. 584 of 2000 had reformed the labour system in several respects:

- it confirmed the right to organize and freedom of association, giving full freedom to the trade unions to draft their statutes;

- it removed from the Ministry of Labour the authority to intervene and investigate trade union organizations;

- it allowed trade union organizations to call strikes for non-payment of wages by employers;

- it broadened the guarantee of trade union rights to public servants;

- it granted public servants the right to time off for trade union activities; and

- it provided for the resolution of collective labour disputes by minority trade unions through arbitration tribunal.

For its part, the Constitutional Court, through various executive orders, had derogated several provisions of the Substantive Labour Code that had not been in conformity with the political Constitution and ILO Conventions. In this way, several provisions relating to the intervention of the Ministry of Labour into the internal affairs of trade unions, such as the adoption of their statutes and intervention in trade union meetings, had been declared inapplicable in order to strengthen the principle of trade union autonomy. It also permitted workers to join several trade unions. Applying the principle of equality, the provisions that made a distinction between the activities of trade unions of enterprises and those of professions and industries had been derogated. In case of the coexistence of a number of minority trade unions in one enterprise, all of them could be represented in collective bargaining. The rights to hold sympathy strikes and to strike, not only for the non-payment of wages, but also for non-observance of any contractual obligation by the employer, were provided for. The Labour Appeals Tribunal of the Supreme Court of Justice, in its decision of 1998 interpreting the provision, had recognized the existence of circumstantial rights for all workers involved in collective labour disputes.

He indicated that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security had held a number of seminars with the territorial directors and labour inspectors in order to bring their competency and functions into conformity with the Conventions. Furthermore, several directives relating to the observance of the principles of freedom of association had been adopted. For example, the administrative act that provided for registration in the register of trade unions was not subject to appeal and, in the event of disputes, the usual jurisdiction was applicable. The same rule was applicable to the resolutions which prescribed the rotation of trade union office. Similarly, directives concerning the mandatory character of collective bargaining for public employees had been issued, in conformity with Conventions Nos. 151 and 154. Protest actions by workers had been respected and none of them had been declared illegal. Arbitration tribunals had only been convened at the request of trade union organizations. Social dialogue and collective bargaining had been promoted as a mechanism to resolve disputes and conflicts. The 200 or more collective agreements, arbitration awards or agreements signed over the past 12 months illustrated this dialogue.

The Ministry of Labour had defended the trade union activity as a fundamental element of democracy, had condemned the assassinations and death threats against trade unionists, had publicly demanded the paramilitary groups to stop this assassination in the same way as it had demanded guerrilla groups to release numerous persons being held in captivity.

He emphasized that, in respect of the protection of the life of trade unionists, the national Government, at the initiative of the President and with the participation of delegates of trade unions, was developing a national programme of protection for trade unionists under the responsibility of the Minister of Interior. On the other hand, the Congress of the Republic, at the initiative of the Government, and with previous consultation with trade unions of public employees, had adopted, on 12 June 2001, the new Act on administrative careers, which provided mechanisms for entry, promotion and work in the public administration which were much more favourable and democratic for workers.

With respect to regulation of the right to strike in essential public services, the Government hoped that the legislation governing this right would be the result of a process of dialogue between employers, workers and the Government. He emphasized that the right to strike and to social protest were guaranteed by the national Constitution, and that the Government fully respected this right and had not declared illegal any type of strike or work stoppage.

The Minister of Labour indicated that he was approaching the end of his tenure and expressed his gratitude to all the members of the Committee for its collaboration in endeavouring to bring the labour legislation in Colombia into conformity with the democratic principles of the ILO and freedom of association including the life of trade unionists which needed to be respected, not only as an integral part of democracy, but also as a guarantee for the establishment of a new type of labour relations. He indicated that in the current conditions of acute and degrading violence, worsened by the criminal activities of the paramilitary groups, drug traffickers and organized crime, the best contribution that the ILO could make would be to strengthen the programme of tripartite cooperation with Colombia and encourage workers, employers and the Government to have the political will to put the objectives of this programme into practice.

The Employer members recalled that the Committee had examined the application of the Convention for a number of years and that a long debate had been held on the subject the previous year. The case raised two issues. The first related to law and practice, which were contrary to the principles set out in the Convention concerning freedom of association, and the second related to the climate of violence which existed in the country and which constituted a very serious obstacle to the exercise by employers and workers of their rights under the Convention. The situation also raised the question of the relationship between a climate of violence and legislation which was not in conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It was clear that inadequate labour legislation did not of itself generate violence. However, the existence of a climate of violence did not encourage the amendment of the legislation. Although the question of violence was not directly within the mandate of the Committee and the ILO was not in a position to take the necessary measures to put an end to the violence, the Committee was faced with a dilemma, since the actual development of labour legislation was influenced by the overall situation prevailing in the country.

With reference to the long list of points covered by the comments of the Committee of Experts in the past, the Conference Committee had noted at its session last year the progress achieved by the Government. With regard to the remaining limitations on the right to strike, the Government representative had indicated that draft legislation had been prepared to resolve the problem. However, recalling their position on the right to strike in relation to the Convention, the Employer members believed that no legislative action was required by the Government to bring its law into line with the Convention. The outstanding problem was therefore the climate of violence in the country. As illustrated by the long list of victims read out the previous year, the trade unions were principally affected by the personal attacks, murders and kidnappings, although other sectors of the population, including employers, judges, doctors and the police were also affected. Over the past six years, there had been 200,000 victims, which was a truly horrifying figure. As its name suggested, freedom of association presupposed a minimum degree of freedom and could not prosper in a climate of threats and violence. The Committee would therefore need to express its deep concern and sympathy for the victims and their families in its conclusions, and should call on the Government once again to do everything within its power to achieve a lasting improvement in the situation, which was indispensable if freedom of association was to flourish.

The Worker members thanked the Minister for his speech. Exactly one year ago, figures had been provided for the number of trade union leaders murdered in Colombia. Between January and May 2001, 46 trade unionists had lost their lives. In 2002, the information received was a matter of grave concern: 72 trade unionists had already been murdered. Between June 2001 and May 2002, 176 women and men who were active as trade union leaders had been murdered, without counting the attacks and various crimes committed in relation to trade union activities. Between 4 and 6 June, three more trade unionists had been killed. The level of violence in Colombia was unequalled and principally affected trade union leaders. One Colombian trade unionist had indicated that "the best trade unionist appeared to be a dead trade unionist. The best trade union was the trade union that no longer existed". There could be no doubt that this violence was intended to undermine the trade union movement by preventing any expression of discontent towards policies of exclusion. Attempted murders, kidnappings and disappearances, death threats, persecution, detentions, dismissals, failure to pay the wages due to trade union leaders, restrictions on access to workplaces, and worse, murders and impunity, were the principal cases addressed by the Committee on Freedom of Association over recent years and in respect of which it had constantly urged the need for the full application of the guarantees set out in the Convention. The Committee of Experts cited the Committee on Freedom of Association that regretted that "in most cases of murder, murder attempts or disappearances of trade union officials and members, those responsible have not been arrested and punished". Impunity persisted in the immense majority of cases. Attacks against trade union leaders were increasing further in numbers. The alarming figures provided reflected an increase that was extremely worrying. Last March, the Committee on Freedom of Association had expressed its deep concern:

The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not answered the recommendations of the Committee, nor has it sent its observations on the serious allegations presented by the complainants, concerning a serious increase in the violence. The Committee also deeply regrets that it cannot but conclude that, since this case was last examined at its March 2001 meeting, there has been no sign of progress in reducing the violence against the trade union movement, its representatives and members. (...) The Committee repeats once again that "freedom of association can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental human rights, and in particular those relating to human life and personal safety, are fully respected and guaranteed" and that "the rights of workers' and employers' organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected". (...) The Committee stresses that impunity, whether it is perpetrated or condoned by governments or others in relation to extreme or widespread violations of fundamental rights of freedom of association, is a clear threat to essential trade union rights and the very basis of democracy itself. (...) The Committee also requests the Government to relate all the facts available to it which could help to explain the impunity of the acts of violence against trade union members. The Committee once again reminds the Government of its responsibility for the protection of workers against acts of violence and for a responsible factual and analytical assessment of each and every crime committed.

The Committee on Freedom of Association had also emphasized the need for the Government to provide information to shed light on the motives and circumstances in which acts of violence had been committed. Based on the numerous complaints received from workers' organizations in recent years, the Committee had emphasized specific sectors such as education, the oil industry, the health services and municipal and departmental administrations. These services were greatly affected by most restructuring policies and had a high social cost and a high level of social conflicts. Legal provisions infringing the essential prerogatives of freedom of association also remained, such as restrictions on the right to strike and the submission of disputes to arbitration. The Committee of Experts had been commenting on these points for many years without any change being made.

The Worker members indicated that it was possible to go into great detail on the situation in Colombia, which merited such treatment. The facts were accompanied by clear conclusions and precise demands from the ILO's supervisory bodies. They had been ascertained in the country the previous year by the Special Representative of the Director-General, representatives of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and many trade union missions and delegations sent by several ILO member States, and were sadly eloquent. In Colombia, the right to organize, to collective bargaining and to strike in the public sector and in private enterprises were almost impossible to exercise. Trade union leaders were murdered, received death threats, were unjustly dismissed or persecuted as delinquents, while the murderers of trade union leaders went completely free. Trade unionism in the country had been hit by a real wave of crime. Trade union organizations were weakened, disjointed and were often disappearing. Workers ran the risk of progressively finding themselves without any form of social protection or of organization.

One year ago, it had been decided to establish an ILO programme in Colombia. This had not yet been established, which was highly regrettable in view of the critical situation that had just been described. The Worker members called for the programme to be launched as rapidly as possible and urged the Government to accept the Office's proposal of technical assistance to undertake a factual evaluation of cases of violence, which should make it possible to overcome the issue of impunity and ascertain the real causes of the violence. The previous year, the Worker members had called for a Commission of Inquiry to be sent to Colombia. They reiterated this call once again this year. The Commission of Inquiry should not be an end in itself, but a mechanism of extreme importance in improving respect for trade union freedoms in Colombia. It was needed to respond without any further delay to the many demands and conclusions made by the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts concerning the application of the Convention in law and practice.

A Worker member of Colombia indicated that the exercise of trade union activities in his country had never been easy due to the continuously hostile attitude of employers and governments. From the beginnings of the twentieth century, there had been a massive number of murders of workers, including the massacre of hundreds of workers in 1928. The most recent stage of anti-union persecution had begun in 1979 with the adoption of the so-called Security Charter, which encouraged the violation of premises and the detention and torture of many trade unionists. At the end of the 1980s, the assassinations had begun. During its 15 years of existence, the Workers Central of Colombia (CUT) had recorded the murder of over 3,500 leaders, activists and members. In the year 2000, there had been 128 murders, and the figure had risen to 192 in 2001. During the Conference in 2001, a list had been read out of the 46 trade union leaders murdered during the first five months of that year. In 2001, over the same period, there had been 85 murders. Since the departure of the Colombian delegation to attend the 90th session of the Conference, three more leaders had been killed. To this should be added an interminable list of threats, attacks, displacements, exiles, kidnappings and disappearances which painted a picture of horror for the Colombian trade union movement. In short, during the period between the 89th and 90th Sessions of the Conferences, 420 acts of violence had been perpetrated against the right to life, physical integrity and personal freedom of trade unionists. As an explanation for this dramatic situation, the Government and employers affirmed that there was a general situation of violence in the country which affected many citizens, including trade unionists, and that the Government was making every effort to prevent it. Although the gravity of the violence and its impact on practically all the activities of the country could not be denied, the Government could not use that situation to avoid its responsibilities.

The crimes were shrouded in a thick cloak of impunity. In comments sent to the Committee of Experts this year by the CUT, the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association had been endorsed and it was pointed out that the issue of impunity was aggravating the situation of trade union members. The figures spoke for themselves: there had been over 3,500 murders and only five convictions between August 1986 and April 2002.

The measures taken by the Government to protect trade unionists were very precarious. The programme adopted by the Ministry of the Interior for the protection of trade unionists and human rights defenders was dysfunctional in view of the bureaucratic procedures and lack of resources. The persistent calls for the programme to be restructured, decentralized, the risk evaluation systems modified and sufficient resources allocated, had fallen on deaf ears. The same had occurred with the Inter-Institutional Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Human Rights of Workers, established in 1997, in view of the lack of support by the various State bodies of which it was composed. He considered that, even though important protection measures were taken (and it was hoped that they would be improved in all respects), on their own they were inadequate. A state policy was required to reduce impunity and dismantle the paramilitary groups which were responsible for most of the crimes committed. In practice, the paramilitary groups formed part of a campaign intended to eradicate the trade union movement and prevent any form of resistance to the tenets of neo-liberalism.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, NGOs, various intergovernmental bodies, the Committee on Freedom of Association, international trade union confederations and all those with direct knowledge of the reality in Colombia, agreed on the gravity of the situation and called upon the Government to take effective measures to bring an end to the barbarity. However, the results obtained up to now had been very disappointing.

He affirmed that Colombian workers were firmly attached to peace with social justice and a negotiated solution to the internal conflict and were opposed to any type of external interference through programmes such as the so-called Plan Colombia, which was aggravating the conflict and threatening to extend it beyond the frontiers of the country. He said that he could not hide the great concern of the workers at the policy announced by the new Government which, in his view, would result in an escalation of the war, the aggravation of the country's economic, political and social problems and would make the situation of workers still more critical. He expressed concern at the tendency for the Government to make use of repression to an increasing extent, as illustrated by the reforms to the Single Disciplinary Code, under which acts which had led to the imprisonment of various workers were criminalized, as well as the emergency legislation announced by the new Government. He welcomed the efforts made by the ILO up to now, including the special paragraphs in the report of the Committee, the two direct contacts missions and the sending of a Special Representative of the Director-General. However, he regretted that the special programme for cooperation with Colombia, approved by the Governing Body a year ago, had not commenced due to lack of resources, and he called for the necessary financing to be allocated as soon as possible to initiate it. In view of the fact that the situation was deteriorating in an alarming manner and the Government was not meeting the various requirements of the ILO adequately, he called upon the Committee to place its conclusions on this case in a special paragraph and expressed his concern to the Governing Body at the delay in addressing the complaint submitted by the Workers in 1998 under article 26 of the Constitution. He reiterated his call for the appointment of a Commission of inquiry, even though the Government and the Employers were undertaking a broad campaign to prevent such a measure, using the argument that it would involve economic sanctions for the country which would aggravate the situation, thereby placing Colombian trade unionists in a difficult situation that could have grave consequences for them.

The ILO had at its disposal standards and measures which could be taken in such critical cases as that of Colombia. He called for the standards to be complied with and the measures adopted to ensure that human rights and trade union freedoms were respected.

Another Worker member of Colombia expressed agreement with the Worker members who had spoken previously and thanked the Minister of Labour for his comments. He indicated that while he had been the Minister he had prevented even more serious acts being committed against workers. He observed that the adoption of the neo-liberal model, with its structural adjustment programmes, privatization, reduction in protection and absence of incentives for national production, the imposition of labour reforms involving greater flexibility, the loss of stability, more precarious employment and the dismantling of social security, had pushed his country backwards in the concert of nations.

He supported the special emphasis placed on the issue of violations of the right to life, personal security and physical and moral integrity of trade union leaders, which were basic requirements for the exercise of the rights set out in Convention No. 87. Nevertheless, he expressed concern at other aspects of freedom of association in the light of the above Convention and other fundamental ILO Conventions. At the present time, it was extremely difficult to establish a trade union organization in view of the anti trade union policy of certain employers, who sought to dismiss anyone who promoted the establishment of a trade union. Furthermore, the deregulation of labour and the proliferation of civil contracts for the performance of services did not facilitate the establishment of trade union organizations. The decline in unionization rates was in large part due to the climate of terror among those who wished to establish a trade union. In practice, there was a policy to eradicate trade unionism by pointing the finger at trade unionists as being those responsible for the economic crisis confronting the country, thereby making them the perfect target for murders of all types.

There were also other violations of trade union rights, such as the undue interference of the authorities in the establishment of trade union organizations and the legalization of intervention by employers in the registration of trade unions, through the acceptance of employers providing resources for the registration of trade union organizations. Mass redundancies for alleged economic reasons were also used to promote the so-called "cooperatives of associated work", consisting of non-unionized workers based on the argument that the workers owned the enterprise and did not therefore need a trade union. It was impossible to enumerate all the violations of the exercise of freedom of association perpetrated on a daily basis in Colombia, and which had been the subject of a large number of complaints to the Committee on Freedom of Association. Indeed, there were currently ten cases before the Committee, and another four that were being followed up, including allegations from many trade union organizations. This demonstrated the difficult situation confronting Colombian workers, not only with regard to fundamental human rights, but also the exercise of freedom of association.

The right to collective bargaining was substantially restricted. Many employers proposed alternative pacts, both in the public and private sector, as a means of undermining collective agreements. The fact that, after much effort on the part of the workers, Convention No. 151 had been ratified, despite the fact that the Constitutional Court had declared that organizations of public employees did not have the right to collective bargaining, was a clear illustration of the current situation.

The situation of workers in many public and private enterprises, municipal authorities and departments, in the health and judicial sectors in the country, gave rise to great anxiety, particularly since the new economic team had announced greater flexibility, more privatizations, a regressive reform of the pensions system and new sacrifices for workers. The future was not promising. Colombia urgently needed to adopt measures to lay the basis for the development of a new country in which peace was the product of justice.

The Worker member of the United States referred to his statement to the Committee the previous year concerning his special responsibility and burden to intervene in this case, as a trade unionist and citizen of the United States. Although it was Colombia and not the United States whose case was under consideration, it was his Government's military assistance implemented through Plan Colombia which was contributing to the armed conflict, thereby augmenting the physical terror directed against Colombian trade unionists. Under Plan Colombia, financial assistance was provided to the Colombian armed forces, some of whose personnel and resources were interchangeable with the paramilitary forces responsible for many of the assassinations of Colombian citizens and trade unionists. He emphasized the special responsibility of the Conference and the Governing Body in solving the problems in Colombia.

He referred to the conclusion of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1787 on Colombia, in which the Committee had deplored that no significant progress had been achieved in the cases pending before it and trusted that the Governing Body would take this into account when coming to its decision on whether a Commission of Inquiry should be established. Since November 1999, the Committee on Freedom of Association had reached this conclusion. This Committee had reviewed the case of Colombia, the Governing Body had considered it in nearly all of its sessions, a direct contacts mission had been dispatched and the special technical cooperation programme had been designed. Over 128 Colombian trade unionists had been assassinated in 2000, over 194 in 2001 and over 80 in the first six months of this year, not to mention more than 3,500 murdered since 1985, according to the estimates of the Colombian Confederation of Trade Unions. Yet, between 1986 and 2002, the Colombian National Prosecutorial Unit on Human Rights concluded that guilty verdicts had been found in only five of these cases.

The destruction of Colombian trade union organizations was also being carried out by the application of flexibilization and the inadequate enforcement of labour laws, often driven by IMF prescriptions for structural adjustment and the lobbying and pressure of employers. He indicated that Colombian law permitted the conclusion of direct collective pacts between employers and groups of individual employees, effectively thwarting trade union organizations. Massive lay-offs, followed by the creation of cooperatives in which the workers were made into so-called "owners" was another effective tactic used for the destruction of Colombian unions. Section 46 of Act No. 50 of 1990 gave the Colombian Labour Ministry and the administrative authorities the power to deny otherwise legitimate registration requests for new trade unions, while the administrative authorities often permitted employers to challenge trade union registrations.

Referring to the issue of the physical destruction of trade unions and assassinations of trade unionists, he indicated that the Interior Ministry's protection programme had proven to be dysfunctional for reasons of budgetary constraints, administrative inefficiency and bad faith on the part of the administrative and enforcement personnel. He referred to a recent UNHCR report confirming that the Government had adopted policies and measures which made the judicial apparatus weaker and more ineffective, thereby further contributing to the extremely high levels of impunity for those responsible for the violence committed against trade unionists. Further powers were also being sought to interfere in investigations of those who had murdered trade unionists.

He called upon the ILO and the Governing Body to seize the moment and apply all available means and mechanisms, including the dispatch of a Commission of Inquiry. The Committee should also place its conclusions on the case in a special paragraph of its report.

The Worker member of France stated that he would make a brief intervention so as to allow the Committee to examine all the cases before it. He deplored that the members of the Committee made excessively lengthy interventions and called upon the Chairperson to make sure that such abuses did not recur.

The violations of the Convention in Colombia were extremely serious and no progress had been made. The laws in Colombia did not respect the ratified Conventions. Furthermore, the violence that prevailed in Colombia was so widespread that the right to life could not be safeguarded and other rights, including the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining, were jeopardized. All the successive Governments of the country had put the blame on armed and paramilitary groups, drug mafias or organized crime. And, even though they had sometimes undertaken to adopt laws to prevent violations of trade union rights, such draft laws were never submitted to Congress. Impunity persisted and, without counting the eventual role of the International Penal Court, it was up to the Government to make every effort to bring its law and practice into conformity with its international obligations set out in Conventions. French workers expressed their solidarity with the Colombian trade union movement and with its brave militants. Their actions contributed, along with those of other actors of civil society, to the strengthening and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law through their active defence of workers' rights. It was necessary to bring an end to a fully fledged genocide of the trade unionists of Colombia.

The Worker member of Cuba expressed the solidarity of Cuban workers with Colombian workers in view of the serious situation under discussion by the Committee. This situation should give rise to the unconditional provision of any necessary assistance. He indicated that he fully agreed with the statements made by the Worker members who had preceded him.

The Worker member of Switzerland observed that the case of Colombia continued to cause consternation to democrats and trade unionists throughout the world. Swiss workers were extremely worried and had expressed their solidarity with the trade unionists of Colombia. The Swiss Trade Union had been approached on several occasions by its members over recent months on the question of what the ILO would be able to do, and what it could not do so as to help recreate the conditions needed to re-establish the exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining. The violence against, and murders of, Colombian trade unionists had lasted far too long and, sadly, were perpetuated in complete impunity. It had to be noted that the procedures followed up to now had had little impact. The assistance programme envisaged had still not been carried out. It was unacceptable to do nothing when the right to life, ILO Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were violated in Colombia. The ordinary procedure should be taken up again and a Commission of Inquiry should be sent to Colombia without delay. The assistance programme should be implemented as soon as possible. It was unacceptable to further delay its implementation under the pretext that its finance was not ensured.

The Worker member of Pakistan reaffirmed that the situation in Colombia, where innocent trade unionists were being brutally murdered, remained of great concern to the people of Colombia and to the international community. There had been no improvement in the observance of the basic rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining. With reference to workers in the public services in particular, he recalled that trade unions were banned in a wide range of services, which were not necessarily essential. Moreover, the legislation provided for the possibility to dismiss trade union officers who called or participated in unlawful strike action. Although the Government had given an undertaking to the Committee to amend the legislation, the relevant provisions remained unchanged. Moreover, recent decisions by two constitutional courts ran counter to the right of collective bargaining. As a result, a large number of workers employed in such public services as banks, financial institutions, transport, telecommunications, electricity, education and public hospitals were unable to present their demands at a time when staff numbers in the public service were being reduced, often within the context of privatization measures. Workers in these services had every right to present their demands and engage in collective bargaining, particularly when their jobs were at threat. However, instead of promoting an agreed solution, workers in non-essential services who took strike action, faced dismissal. This issue had repeatedly been raised by the Committee of Experts.

He therefore strongly urged the Government to amend its labour legislation so as to remove restrictions on trade union activity, including collective bargaining. He also called upon the Government not to undertake restructuring measures in public services, such as hospitals and telecommunications, without providing the necessary safety nets. Workers should not be penalized for taking trade union action. The protection provided for workers should include the prohibition of their being forced to sign contracts in which they undertook not to join unions. He urged the ILO to provide technical assistance to help improve the situation and hoped that the Committee would place its conclusions on this case in a special paragraph of its report.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom recalled that his Colombian trade union colleagues were confronted with violence, murder and grief on a daily basis. Yet, they continued to try to organize and represent their members. Indeed, it was when they performed those basic trade union activities that they were the most likely to be attacked. He recalled that the previous year he had read out the names of the 46 Colombian trade union colleagues murdered in the preceding five months. He would not on this occasion read out the names of all the 192 colleagues who had been murdered in 2001, nor the 85 killed since January 2002. The increasing level of violence against trade unionists in Colombia had been described as an attempt to completely eradicate the trade union movement in the country. To give an idea of the level of brutality facing Colombian trade union leaders and members, he described incidents which had occurred during his visit on a TUC mission to the country in February 2002. Moreover, he had been told of teachers shot in classes in front of their pupils and threats to people connected with the trade union movement. Despite all the Committee's discussions of the case, the violence was not abating, but indeed was increasing. The limited Ministry of the Interior protection programme had come to an end on 31 May for lack of funds. Unfortunately, Governments had not kept their pledge to contribute to the ILO Special Cooperation Programme, which included a protection programme, and had been presented as an alternative to a Commission of Inquiry.

He emphasized that the murders continued with impunity. Since 1986, a total of some 3,500 trade unionists had been murdered. Investigating magistrates risked murder, or were removed, as they investigated their cases. The Office of the Prosecutor-General reported that only 376 investigations had been initiated, of which only three had reached the courts, with a few more being referred to military courts. In only five cases had sentences been passed. This constituted almost total impunity. Regardless of the workers' goodwill towards the country, the fact was that its institutions had proved incapable of dealing with the problem of impunity. Systematic weaknesses undermined efficient and democratic government and there was insufficient will in the body politic. The security forces did not appear to be under the clear control of the Government, and there were links between the paramilitary and some sections of the security forces, even though the nature of such links remained unclear. The Committee needed to ask itself what it could best do to help the Government and the social partners break the hellish cycle of impunity. In this respect, he expressed the firm conviction that only an ILO Commission of Inquiry could help. However, such a measure should not be regarded as a threat or a punishment, but as the most powerful procedure in the ILO's supervisory structures. Such a Commission of Inquiry would undoubtedly uncover truths that were horrible and difficult. But without truth, there could be no reconciliation, and without reconciliation, there could be no lasting peace.

The Worker member of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the workers of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, expressed her solidarity with the workers of Colombia and reiterated their commitment to continue cooperation with the Colombian trade unionists. She stated, with a mixture of fury and profound pain, that the situation of violence was worsening and the number of killings of trade unionists was increasing every day. Despite the promises and apparent goodwill expressed by the Government the previous year in the Committee, the assassinations had continued and the murderers remained free on the streets. There was no doubt that the trade unionists were victims of systematic terror. This constituted a tragedy and in essence represented a far-reaching failure of the Government. Her organization, the Swedish Trade Union Confederation, had on several occasions visited the country. It was difficult to understand and describe the situation of permanent tension in which the trade unionists were living. She expressed her admiration and deep respect for them. This year a decisive step had to be made in order to change the situation of terror and death. The establishment of a Commission of Inquiry and the development of an extensive programme of ILO technical assistance were key elements in starting this process. Her organization called upon the Government of Sweden to speak up in the next session of the Governing Body in favour of the need for full financing of the technical programme for Colombia adopted the previous year. There were ways to bring an end to the violence in Colombia and to guarantee the full exercise of freedom of association. The Government of Colombia had to make the first step and should not shirk its responsibility.

The Government member of Denmark also speaking on behalf of the Government members of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, referred to the statement made by the European Union in the Committee the previous year, which had called upon the Government to take urgent and effective steps to ensure the legal and physical protection of those affected by the extensive violence in the country. The European Union had taken up this grave matter again at the Governing Body sessions in November 2001 and March 2002. She reiterated her deepest concern at the climate of violence in Colombia. Trade unionists continued to suffer attempts on their lives, physical integrity and security, and on their freedom of movement. In most of the cases of murder, attempted murder or disappearances of trade unionists, those responsible had neither been arrested nor charged. She expressed alarm at the high degree of impunity. The guarantees set out in international labour Conventions, in particular those relating to freedom of association, could only be effective if the civil and political rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were genuinely recognized and protected. The Government needed to take immediate and adequate measures to guarantee trade unionists the right to life, integrity and freedom of association, including the implementation and respect of the ILO's fundamental Conventions. In this connection, she emphasized the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities in full freedom. For many years, the Government's attention had been drawn to certain provisions of the Labour Code. During the direct contacts mission carried out in February 2000, draft legislation had been prepared to amend these provisions. However, even though the Government had undertaken to submit these draft texts to Congress, this had not yet been done. She therefore called on the Government to ensure that the draft legislation was submitted to Congress for adoption without delay. It was also very important to take measures to give effect to the legislation. Finally, she requested the Government to keep the Committee of Experts informed of the progress made in its next report to the ILO.

The Government member of the United States stated that this case had a long history of review by the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee. There was progress regarding legislative inconsistencies with Convention No. 87 over a period of years, and the Government had demonstrated a commitment to promoting measures recommended by the Committee of Experts. However, the situation of violence against trade unionists remained serious. Many have died violently, and the death toll continued to mount. The special technical assistance programme for Colombia was designed to promote social dialogue, improve labour relations and protect trade unions at risk. The United States fully supported this programme and endorsed the use of the existing cash surplus to fund it. Freedom of association had a key role to play in Colombia's path to peace, social justice, reconciliation and democracy. The speaker hoped that the incoming Government would continue, with help from the ILO and as a matter of urgency, to take the necessary steps - in both law and practice - to fully protect freedom of association and the right to organize.

The Government representative stated that he had listened attentively to the statements of the Employer and Worker members, as well as those made by the Government members. It was not possible to hide the violent situation in Colombia - the assassination of thousands of Colombians, trade unionists, and children. Thousands had also been kidnapped - six parliamentarians, a governor, 45 members of the armed forces, a presidential candidate. Priests had been assassinated, including the Bishop of Calí, as well as dozens of journalists. Many entrepreneurs had been kidnapped or killed, and threats had been made against judges and mayors. The heightened violence was an affront to human dignity.

The international community had followed the peace efforts under which the President had used all of his prestige to try to engage in dialogue with the FARC and ELN, but the process was eroding. The speaker acknowledged the existence of vigilante and self-defence groups associated with the extreme right.

During the 23 months in which the speaker had been Minister of Labour there had never been a denial of a trade union registration. His Government had abstained from presenting to Parliament a draft law regulating the right to strike in the public services for fear that it would be amended in a way that was contrary to the agreements that should be reached through tripartite consultation.

The speaker stated that he understood the initiatives taken by the Conference Committee, and he had no intention of ruling out any of them. He only wanted to insist that the spirit of the special paragraph adopted by the Conference Committee in 2001 remained in force. During his administration, he had worked in this spirit. A Commission of Inquiry would not end the violence and would create false expectations without stopping the genocide taking place in Colombia.

To stop the genocide, it was necessary to complete political and social agreements between the inhabitants of Colombia. Political agreements should be reached between the State, unions, employers, guerrillas and paramilitaries, together with Colombian society. In the current conditions, a Commission of Inquiry could give an misleading message that could fuel the process of violence.

Trade unions were an important institution in a democracy. Many Colombian employers were also in favour of peace and social dialogue, and some were inspired by the actions of Swedish employer and worker organizations.

The speaker appealed for the special Technical Cooperation Programme cash surplus to be strengthened in order for Colombia to make full use of the resources available from the Office and support a global approach to the problem. The speaker recognized and appreciated the efforts of the Office to tackle the problems in Colombia and pressed for finding a way to overcome the violence and establish lasting peace and social justice.

The Worker members stated that it was difficult to have a debate on a situation for which one could hardly speak of freedom of expression. If, evidently, the present case caused some deep emotions, it was clear that certain facts were at the heart of this. The legislation concerning trade unions remained in contradiction to Convention No. 87. Trade unionists continued to be murdered because of their activities; others were subjected to threats or persecution. The total impunity surrounding the criminal acts perpetrated against the trade unionists flouted freedom of association. The line followed by the Government amounted to criminalizing freedom of association. Therefore, the Worker members asked the Government to agree to an ILO Commission of Inquiry, which could have an important impact. They also supported the proposal made by the Government member of Denmark on behalf of the Government members of the Nordic countries, to allocate the cash surplus of the Organization to the programme on the protection of freedom of association. In their view, the failure by the Government to apply Convention No. 87 justified the inclusion of the case in a special paragraph of the Conference Committee report.

The Employer members noted that it was apparent from the discussion that the present problem was a wide-ranging one with diverse causes. It was not limited to issues of labour law, but affected all sectors. As such, they cautioned, the problem did not lie entirely within the remit of the ILO, nor did the ILO have the right or the means to undertake to solve it. They noted that, as solutions to the problem were yet to be found, in spite of the measures taken by the Government, proposing new measures may possibly prove counterproductive. They felt it was difficult to identify the correct approach to the problem. In conclusion, they stated that the situation needed to be described in clearer, more objective terms, and the Government should be allowed to develop a proposal, without prejudice.

The Worker members agreed to the conclusions, as presented by the Chair of the Committee, and severely condemned the attitude of the Employer members, which prevented a consensus on the inclusion of a special paragraph. They felt that by this attitude, the Employer members implicitly refused to recognize the worsening of the climate of violence in this country. They requested that immediate measures be taken to ensure respect for freedom of association. Finally, the Worker members referred to their previous intervention on the protection of the personal security of the trade unionists and on the use of the cash surplus of the Organization to finance the activities of the special technical assistance programme in Colombia.

The Employer members reserved their position on the previous statement.

The Employer members continued to oppose the inclusion of the case of Colombia in a special paragraph. They protested against the Workers' allegations. The Worker members' declaration was contradictory and wrong in substance. The Employer members had accepted without reservations the conclusions on the case of Colombia which they had elaborated together with the Worker members. They therefore firmly rejected the Worker members' assertion that the Employer numbers would not recognize the realities in Colombia. They observed that for 12 years, a spirit of cooperation, and not one of confrontation, had reigned in the Committee. But it also was with this spirit that one occasionally had to agree to disagree. The Employer members warned against giving up cooperation and jeopardizing this spirit. The consequences would be regretted by all.

After the Chairperson's indication that, in essence, the case had already been closed, the Worker members took note of the situation and did not wish to re-open the debate.

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and of the discussion which ensued. The Committee observed with deep concern that the grave situation of violence continued to prevail in the country. It recalled that this dramatic situation has been and continues to be the subject of numerous complaints before the Committee on Freedom of Association and that a complaint by virtue of article 26 of the ILO Constitution was presented in June 1998. The Committee once again condemned in the strongest terms the murders and abductions of trade unionists, as well as the kidnapping of employers. The Committee recalled that workers' and employers' organizations can only exercise their activities freely and meaningfully in a climate that is free from violence. It urged the Government to take the necessary measures urgently to bring an end to this situation of insecurity by restoring respect for fundamental human rights and, in particular, the right to life and security of persons so that workers' and employers' organizations could fully exercise their rights recognized by the Convention. To this end, the Committee urged the Government to establish and strengthen the institutions necessary to put a stop to the intolerable situation of impunity prevalent in the country and which was a serious obstacle to the free exercise of trade union rights. The Committee also noted that the questions concerning the application of the Convention have been placed before the Consultative Commission on Salary and Labour Policies. The Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government to take the necessary measures immediately with a view to guaranteeing full application of the Convention both in law and in practice. It requested the Government to submit a full report in this respect to the Committee of Experts so that it could once again examine this situation at its next meeting. The Committee expressed the hope that the complaint lodged in June 1998 under article 26, which was still pending, would be re-examined by the Governing Body with a view to using all appropriate means at its disposal, especially technical cooperation programmes, which could contribute to the full respect of Convention No. 87 in law and in practice. In the event that the Government did not fully avail itself of this technical cooperation, the Committee would be obliged to consider stronger possibilities when it examines this case next year. The Committee took note of the Government's statement to the effect that the spirit of the special paragraph adopted last year still prevails.

The Worker members agreed to the conclusions, as presented by the Chair of the Committee, and severely condemned the attitude of the Employer members, which prevented a consensus on the inclusion of a special paragraph. They felt that by this attitude, the Employer members implicitly refused to recognize the worsening of the climate of violence in this country. They requested that immediate measures be taken to ensure respect for freedom of association. Finally, the Worker members referred to their previous intervention on the protection of the personal security of the trade unionists and on the use of the cash surplus of the Organization to finance the activities of the special technical assistance programme in Colombia.

The Employer members reserved their position on the previous statement.

The Employer members continued to oppose the inclusion of the case of Colombia in a special paragraph. They protested against the Workers' allegations. The Worker members' declaration was contradictory and wrong in substance. The Employer members had accepted without reservations the conclusions on the case of Colombia which they had elaborated together with the Worker members. They therefore firmly rejected the Worker members' assertion that the Employer numbers would not recognize the realities in Colombia. They observed that for 12 years, a spirit of cooperation, and not one of confrontation, had reigned in the Committee. But it also was with this spirit that one occasionally had to agree to disagree. The Employer members warned against giving up cooperation and jeopardizing this spirit. The consequences would be regretted by all.

After the Chairperson's indication that, in essence, the case had already been closed, the Worker members took note of the situation and did not wish to re-open the debate.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2001, Publication: 89th ILC session (2001)

A Government representative, the Minister of Labour and Social Security, welcomed the constant concern of the international community for the situation in Colombia and the peace process in his country. He recalled the efforts that were being made by the Government to achieve peace, but said that nevertheless the conflict had become very much worse. He emphasized that the policy of the Government was to support the peace process, negotiate, enter into dialogue and seek agreements with the guerrilla organizations in the country, but never with the paramilitary groups, which were the major enemies of peace. The Government was taking legal and military action against the paramilitary groups. In Colombia, action was being taken to prevent any progress being made in the peace process, as illustrated by the attack on the trade union leader Dr. Wilson Borja. That attack had been condemned by the Government and repudiated by Colombian society, in the same way as the other acts against peace, such as the murder of trade union leaders, political leaders, entrepreneurs, media workers and priests, as well as kidnappings, massacres and disappearances. He stated that during the course of 2001 over 40 trade unionists had been murdered and that, according to the Government, 95 per cent of these murders had been committed by paramilitary groups which were opposed to trade unionism. The Government had engaged in dialogue with the guerrillas and was taking military action against the paramilitary forces, as well as combating arrangements between public officials and these groups. Hundreds of members of paramilitary groups had been detained and their goods and arms confiscated. A commission of eminent persons had been set up and would produce a report on possible relations between members of the armed forces and paramilitary groups. Within three months, the commission would make proposals for the dismantling of these groups. The Government had taken initiatives to provide protection to trade unionists, for which there was currently a protection fund of 2.5 million US dollars. He added that the support of the ILO in maintaining the fund had been of great importance and that support had been sought from other countries to collaborate in the protection of trade unionists.

He indicated that a fundamental aspect of decreasing the level of violence was for the international community to collaborate in reaching an agreement between the State and the guerrillas concerning the civil population within the context of international humanitarian law. The development of a better environment for the defence of human rights would also make it possible to create a better environment for the peace process. Ten days ago, the Government had signed the first agreement with the main guerrilla organization in the country (FARC) on a humanitarian exchange, as a result of which the group would free 100 soldiers and police officers and the Government would free 15 guerrillas on humanitarian and health grounds. This could mark the beginning of new agreements. At the present time, efforts were also being made to reach an agreement with the insurgent group ELN. He emphasized the fact that there was no state policy against trade unionism, but said that he was aware of the existence of a situation of violence which had to be eradicated with the help of the international community. The situation of violence also affected the exercise of trade union rights, as set out in the Convention, and particularly endangered the life of trade unionists. He said that he was aware that the subject would once again be addressed in a few days in the Governing Body when it examined the third report of the Special Representative of the Director-General for Cooperation with Colombia, Dr. Alburquerque. He emphasized that the Government was open to collaboration with the international community, as illustrated by the presence over the past five years in the country of the Special Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, whose reports recalled the need to respect human rights. The Government valued the presence of Dr. Alburquerque and the door was open to any trade union, employers' or government organization which wished to collaborate in the peace process. He added that any cooperation with the ILO would be welcome and if the Governing Body decided to extend the mandate of the Special Representative, such a proposal would be supported. If it were to be decided to set up a commission of inquiry, Colombia would also be prepared to examine this possibility, since its people were tired of so many deaths and, if it continued down the path of violence, it would be heading towards self-destruction. He emphasized that the Government was prepared to discuss joint solutions within the framework of the ILO. With reference to the observation of the Committee of Experts, he noted that the progress made in the legislation by Act No. 584 had been welcomed. However, he noted that other matters had not been addressed. He referred in this respect to the right to strike of federations and confederations and noted that under the provisions of the political Constitution these organizations could call strikes, and indeed last year had called three general strikes. He emphasized that the current Government fully respected the right of social protest and that measures were not taken by the Ministry of Labour to restrict this right. With regard to the regulation of the right to strike in essential services, the Concertation Commission was addressing this matter, but had not reached agreement. He nevertheless emphasized that in practice the right to strike was respected in essential services, as illustrated by the strike which had been going on for 30 days by teachers and health sector workers. In Colombia, the legal personality and registration of workers' organizations were no longer denied. He recalled that his Government promoted social dialogue as a means, not only of diffusing conflicts, but also as a channel for denunciations of violations of trade union rights, without ever undermining the autonomy of parties which wished to submit complaints. He repeated that the Government was open to all initiatives and all cooperation and technical assistance from the ILO. He urged the representatives of workers and employers to reach agreements to improve freedom of association and mechanisms to protect the life of trade unionists, while at the same time resolving issues relating to sectoral bargaining, the regulation of strikes in the public or general services and the labour charter. Finally, he said that the assistance of the ILO would contribute to trade union rights becoming a reality and to Colombia going further down the path of reconciliation.

The Worker members recalled that the gross violations of freedom of association in Colombia were placed as a recurrent item on the agenda of the current committee for more than a decade. They indicated that the ILO, in its entirety, was profoundly concerned at the repeated and permanent violations. The Governing Body was going to examine the measures to be taken on the occasion of the report of the Special Representative of the Director-General whose mandate was going to end soon. Last March, the Worker members within the Governing Body had expressed again their concern in a document that summed up the observations in the second report of the Special Representative of the Director-General at the continued anti-trade union violations and the lack of concrete commitments made by the Government. The document mentioned, among other matters, the continuous impunity of the perpetrators of crimes committed against trade unions, the lack of protection measures for trade unionists, the dismissal of trade unionists by some enterprises, and other acts contrary to Convention No. 87.

In their observations of last year, the Committee of Experts confirmed many of the points mentioned above. In the first instance, the Committee had expressed its deep concern at the climate of violence existing in the country, while taking due note of the report of the direct contacts mission of February 2000 as well as of the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the different cases relating to Colombia. They quoted the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association which stated that "the scale of murders, kidnappings, death threats and other violent acts against trade union officials and members is unprecedented in history".

They indicated that they had the occasion lately to obtain detailed information from their Colombian colleagues on the most recent violations. They gave some statistics: since 1996, 1,557 trade unionists had been murdered; 60 had disappeared; 72 had been kidnapped; and 1,670 had received direct death threats. While in 2000, 136 trade unionists had been assassinated, representing an increase of 59 per cent in comparison to 1999. Since the beginning of 2001, during the period from 1 January to 30 March, 46 trade unionists had been assassinated. The Committee of Experts recalled that even if that violence were an endemic phenomenon, the fact of trade union leaders constituted a fundamental factor in such assassinations. The same was true for the kidnappings which were aimed, in particular, at the social and economic partners.

In its observation, the Committee of Experts confirmed, while referring to the 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, that "the guarantees set out in international labour Conventions, in particular those relating to freedom of association, can only be effective if the civil and political rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments are generally recognized and protected". It was only natural for the Worker members to express their deep concern at the deteriorating situation, on the one hand, and at the Government's incapacity to find a solution, on the other hand. They were of the view that the ILO and the Committee of Experts should endeavour to find new solutions to this appalling situation witnessed by the Colombian trade unionists.

They stated that the problem of freedom of association, which was in itself a serious problem, did not limit itself to the attacks against the physical integrity of trade unions. As it was stated by one of our fellow Colombian trade unionists: "While we are mourning our fellow dead trade unionists, others are busy causing the deaths of trade unions." In light of the above remarks, the Committee of Experts made the following comments in the case of the Union of Maritime Transport Industry Workers (UNIMAR) referring to the refusal by some employers' organizations to pay the trade union dues which have been checked off: the dismissal of trade union leaders and withholding of their wages; the dismissal of workers attending trade union meetings; and the blocking of trade union funds. They further indicated that the phenomenon described above was not isolated, according to the information made available to the Committee. The Worker members were of the view that the practices aimed at directly threatening trade unionists, and rendering impossible the exercise of freedom of association constituted the second aspect of the case.

The third aspect related to legal reforms. In their comments, the Committee noted with satisfaction the adoption of Act No. 584 of 13 June 2000. In that regard, the Worker members indicated that they could associate themselves with the abovementioned evaluation because the new law responded effectively to a large number of points contained in the comments made by the Committee for a number of years. However, there were pending elements, or elements that were not in compliance with the Convention, such as the conditions set on nationality, the restrictions imposed on the freedom of trade union activities, and expressed their wish that some of the above points would be mentioned in the conclusions. They noted that the Government was committed to remedying the situation in a tripartite framework.

They confirmed that the Worker members could be satisfied if the provisions specified in the Labour Code could be the only ones to be referred to. Unfortunately, the other coin of Colombian reality was painful and serious, and required an absolute prioritization by the Committee. The continued impunity vis-à-vis the assassinations and other acts of violence perpetrated against trade unionists and the anti-trade union practices had obliged once again the Committee to adopt a firm attitude towards the Government to ensure the application in practice of Convention No. 87, and above all, to guarantee the most fundamental rights, such as the right to life.

In view of the ILO's multiple efforts deployed in the past, the Worker members expressed the wish that the ILO strengthen its position on the matter. They expressed the hope that the conclusions of the Committee regarding the case be set aside in a specific paragraph. To ensure efficiency vis-à-vis the aborted attempts of the past, the Worker members had submitted the following requests to the Government: (a) the guarantee of freedom of action and the right to opposition by trade union organizations; (b) the initiation of a real process of social dialogue with a view to promoting a climate of social peace and observance of the rights of each and every person, and thereby seek a consensus on the measures to be taken to bring the Labour Code in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention; and (c) ensure an effective protection against the acts of violence, relating to the death threats and the assassination of trade unionists as well as the kidnapping of the social and economic partners. In that regard, they indicated the necessity of taking the appropriate measures to put an end to the impunity of the perpetrators of such crimes. In conclusion, the Worker members had expressed the wish that the Committee endorse in its conclusions the request submitted to the Governing Body in respect of sending a Commission of Inquiry to Colombia, or seek another appropriate mechanism to achieve the same purposes; in other words, to ensure concrete and tangible progress in the fight against the appalling spiral of violence witnessed by the country and, in particular, by the trade unionists.

The Employer members recalled that the case of Colombia was an extremely serious case which had been discussed by the Conference Committee on various occasions. In its comments, the Committee of Experts had rightly stated that the existing context in the country, namely the climate of violence, constituted a serious obstacle to the exercise of the right to freedom of association. The Committee of Experts had noted with deep concern the climate of violence which existed in the country. It had also referred to the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the report of the direct contacts mission which visited the country in February 2000, as well as to the allegations made by various trade unions. The Government representative had openly acknowledged the current situation in the country and had welcomed any proposal that might be made in that respect. The Employer members agreed that it was of crucial importance to find solutions to remedy the situation, and they therefore welcomed the fact that the Government representative had not shown a similar attitude to that demonstrated on previous occasions when the case had been discussed by the Committee, when an attempt had been made to deny the gravity of the situation. This already constituted a positive signal. Moreover, they agreed with the statement made by the Government representative that it was not only trade unions which suffered from the climate of violence, but also employers, politicians and, in the final analysis, society as a whole. They added that the situation was also unprecedented in that the Government had concluded agreements with the guerrillas and paramilitary forces indicating which group exercised power in certain areas of the country.

Nevertheless, the Employer members observed that the Committee of Experts had noted some progress over the previous year with the adoption of Act No. 584 on 13 June 2000. The Act had repealed or amended a number of the provisions on which the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee had been commenting for many years. The Committee of Experts had therefore cited Colombia in the general part of its report as a case of progress in relation to the application of the Convention. The amendments concerned provisions such as the former requirement that, for the registration of a trade union, the labour inspector needed to certify the absence of other unions; the requirement to have Colombian nationality in order to hold executive office in a trade union; and the need to be of Colombian nationality to be a member of a delegation submitting a list of claims to an employer.

With reference to the fact that the new Act had not addressed other legislative provisions on which the Committee of Experts had commented, and particularly on the right to strike, the Employer members recalled their position that the right to strike was not derived from the Convention and that no legislative action was therefore necessary on that point. Noting the information that draft legislation on the right to strike had been prepared during the direct contacts mission in February 2000, they pointed out that it was for the Government to decide whether or not it would adopt legislation respecting the right to strike. In the view of the Employer members, the adoption of such legislation was not indispensable for the application of the Convention.

In conclusion, the Employer members emphasized that, in view of the overall situation in the country, it was important for consultations to be held between the Government and the social partners so that they could endeavour to find solutions to remedy the situation in so far as possible.

The Worker member of Colombia had listened attentively to the statement made by the Minister of Labour of Colombia. It was obvious that the situation of workers in the country had not worsened, since the Minister had sided with the most vulnerable sector, namely the workers. Today, more than ever, it was necessary to duly recognize positive factors because in the climate of violence surrounding the people of Colombia, democratic gestures and conduct facilitated the difficult task of national reconstruction. However, he considered his duty to inform the Committee of several facts that could help to better understand the situation in Colombia. He pointed out that Mr. Wilson Borja, president of the National Federation of State Employees, who had miraculously survived an attack on his life on 15 December 2000 in Bogotá, was present at the Conference Committee. His colleague, Wilson, was a prime example, or unfortunately a poor example of how certain factions of the extreme right settled political, social and labour disputes by resorting to murder and violence. He emphasized that during the first five-and-a-half months of 2001, 46 unionists had been murdered and that there was no light at the end of the tunnel. He wished to be sincere and fair, stating that workers were also concerned by the current policy leading not only to the murder of trade unionists, but also to the extermination of trade unions that continued to be the target of a variety of attacks to eliminate them and thereby destroying all possibilities for collective organization, collective bargaining and the exercise of the right to strike. It was very important to make people aware that the situation with regard to freedom of association was serious. The following facts spoke for themselves:

-- In 1997, 23 workers were fired by the enterprise Telecom of Bogotá for exercising their right to strike. Three of those fired were union leaders who were present in the room today. They had not yet been reinstated despite the Ministry of Labour's repeal of the resolution declaring the strike to be illegal, and on which the enterprise had relied to justify the firings and the denial of reinstatement. He hoped that the court justices present would take due note of this fact and would act accordingly.

-- In the last two years, over 120 trade union leaders at the national and regional levels of the National Penitentiary Institute had been fired for exercising their right to protest, in an environment of the most absurd impunity. The situation was so severe that this trade union, which once had 7,000 members, now had less than 1,000. He cited additional problems, including the application of Law No. 617, thousands of firings in the public sector, as well as the closing of enterprises, as a result of the accord between the Government and the IMF.

-- The situation with regard to freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to strike was presently so serious that currently it was not the workers but the employers who were presenting petitions to the trade unions creating an absurd and unacceptable policy of managerial counter-demands which gave rise to the strikes called by of the workers of Bavaria and the Red Cross. He noted that yesterday the national Congress in a significant gesture, had approved, through the initiative of the Government, a security statute which would make the situation even more critical.

-- During the course of the week, an agreement was reached in the Bavarian strike. The Red Cross dispute was still ongoing.

He added that it would be practically impossible to achieve peace in his country if mechanisms that fully guaranteed the right to life, human rights, freedom of association, the right to bargain collectively and employment stability, among other things, were not urgently implemented.

He concluded by asking the Government to indicate: (a) the reasons for not having implemented the labour statute, which constituted a constitutional mandate; (b) the reason why essential public services had not yet been defined; (c) why Colombian employers were so vehemently opposed to the development of collective bargaining by sector of economic activity; and (d) what was the objective of promoting counter-demands. He considered that, while it should take a positive view point, the Committee should nevertheless place its conclusions in a special paragraph.

The Employer member of Colombia said that the Colombian employers condemned the violent acts which affected social harmony in his country and undermined economic development and the stability of the democratic institutions essential to a State governed by the rule of law. In particular, he deplored the attack on Wilson Borja, the prominent trade union leader, just as he deeply regretted the deaths of trade union members and social leaders, victims of decades of internal armed conflict to which a solution was being sought through political negotiation. He acknowledged the Government's efforts to move forward in the peace process with the FARC and to find solutions to the differences with the ELN. International cooperation in recent years had been a valuable support in continuing down that road. At the time of the humanitarian exchange of kidnapped soldiers and police officers for imprisoned and sick FARC guerrillas, the Employers believed all should agree to respect international humanitarian law and end attacks on the civilian population. The cost of the internal conflict was very high. In Colombia 27,000 people a year were murdered, most of them young people. Approximately 15 per cent were victims of the conflict. The country invested some 2.5 per cent of GDP annually in fighting insurgency and civil defence. Economic growth would have been 2.5 per cent a year higher than actually recorded historically if security conditions had been comparable to those of neighbouring countries. The Employers found signs of confidence in current economic indicators: single-digit inflation; a high real exchange rate; a substantial fall in interest rates; control of smuggling; an increase in international reserves; and reduction in the fiscal deficit and export growth. GDP growth in the previous year was 2.8 per cent, after negative growth of 4 per cent in 1999.

As for the support given by the ILO to the work and consultations of employers, workers and governments, he expressed the view that the support given by the multidisciplinary technical team in the Regional Office left no room for dissension on subjects such as employment, social security, vocational training, quasi-fiscal incentives related to employment, modifications to labour law and the definition of essential public services. The process of consultation and conclusions must continue and the Employers were keen to continue the process with the presence and support of the ILO. It was clear from the reports on the activity of the Special Representative of the Director-General of the ILO in Colombia that the Government and other state institutions needed to implement more effective programmes to protect trade union members under threat, quickly identify those responsible for crimes against workers and employers, and intensify the fight against all forms of violence which threatened the country's democracy and social institutions. He expressed his conviction that a stronger presence of ILO officials in Colombia and permanent contact with the representatives of the different social sectors would make a positive contribution to the peace process. He therefore saw the political and technical support of the Organization as beneficial. The Employers welcomed the regional tripartite negotiating tables that had been set up in the country, and the creation of the Special Commission to process complaints to the ILO, such that they were not dealt with outside the country and consensus solutions could be found. In that respect, he considered it essential that the national Government should regulate the mechanism for the employers' organization to provide information in its defence in the complaint proceedings.

In summary, the country was surmounting its economic structural problems and the social indicators showed progress, but there remained an enormous collective challenge to overcome the internal conflict that destroyed lives and properties, held back growth and affected democracy and its ethical viability. He declared that the duty of his generation was to explain and resolve the factors that linked it to a violent past and open the door to a pluralist, sharing, inclusive and prosperous society.

Finally, he wished to convey the words of the President of the Colombian Employers' Association, ANDI, when his daughter, who had been kidnapped by the FARC was released: "Having Juliana back home gives us hope that peace in the country is possible if society strives for it by setting aside any differences, and uniting around the Government and the negotiating table. As ever, I shall continue to serve this cause, which is the cause of Colombia."

The Worker member of the United States reaffirmed that there was no question that the focus of the case under review was the fundamental, violent and tragic failure to comply with the Convention by Colombia. However, all the governments in the international community, and particularly his own, needed to assume appropriate responsibility for the human reality, tragedy and literally, flesh and blood, which provided the foundation for the comments of the Committee of Experts. Nevertheless, such international collective responsibility did not excuse Colombia. Indeed, it morally compelled the international community represented in the Conference Committee to accord the case the extraordinary attention which it deserved. All those governments which were funding Plan Colombia, and particularly his own Government, had to acknowledge and assume responsibility for the impact of the Plan on the application of the Convention. Moreover, he called upon his Government to take the real situation with regard to labour and human rights in Colombia into account in the formulation of the Andean Trade Preferences Act for the current year.

While acknowledging the points raised in the report of the Committee of Experts concerning the reforms made in the country pursuant to the adoption of Act No. 584, he emphasized that these changes in themselves did not go to the root of the extremely serious violations of freedom of association in the country. The improvements in the Labour Code were totally eclipsed by the following instances of fundamental non-compliance with the Convention. Firstly, the amendment to section 486 concerning the obligation for trade union leaders or representatives to produce records and evidence was still unreasonable, and was not remedied by the provision that a superior individual or organization in the trade union structure should give the green light to the authorities. Secondly, the current legislation was a major obstacle to the establishment of collective bargaining by sector as it continued to demand that trade unions attain the absolute majority in each and every company in an industry to have the right to conclude a sectoral agreement. Thirdly, the country lacked the inspection and enforcement capacity to prevent and remedy anti-union discrimination. There were only some 270 labour inspectors to cover over 300,000 enterprises. Moreover, labour inspectors often lacked the basic vehicles and equipment needed to perform their duties and were often deterred by being declared military targets. Fourthly, collective pacts, or in other words agreements between individual workers and their employers, were not subject to collective bargaining by unions and were often used to obstruct the organization of labour. The Ministry of Labour exercised little or no oversight over these practices, with severe implications for the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Finally, he emphasized that the central issue of non-compliance continued to be the assault on the physical integrity of Colombian trade unionists. In that respect, he said that the reference by the Committee of Experts to the finding by the direct contacts mission that "in general the status of trade union leader is a fundamental factor in these assassinations" should once and for all disprove the assertion made by the Government in the past that the assassination of trade unionists was not systematic, but the result of the endemic violence in the country. Paramilitary forces in Colombia had very recently made the chilling announcement that trade unionists were targets simply because of what they did. He noted that since the decision of the Governing Body last year which established an ILO office in Bogotá headed by the Director-General's special representative, the impunity had only continued. Over 136 trade unionists were assassinated in 2000, and well over 46 in the first six months of this year, with the perpetrators still not yet brought to justice.

He therefore appealed to the humanity and conscience of the members of the Committee, and especially the Employer members, in the name of the most basic labour and human rights, to consider doing nothing less than citing the case in a special paragraph of its report and recommending that the ILO do everything within its power to help resolve the situation, which might include the appointment of a commission of inquiry.

The Worker member of Côte d'Ivoire indicated that it was clear from the statement of Colombia's Minister of Labour that the Government had no responsibility for the murders, death threats and kidnappings of trade unionists. Moreover, the Minister of Labour had appealed to the International Labour Office and international community to help Colombia emerge from the cycle of violence in which it was immersed. After listening to the Minister's statement, the Worker member questioned why the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association had made such comments and such a report when the Government was beyond reproach. He nevertheless mentioned that the statement of the Worker member of Colombia had quickly reminded him of the gravity of the situation in Colombia.

Assassinations had become an institution. Not a month passed by without the murder of yet another trade unionist. The Government was the guarantor of public and individual freedoms, and therefore must take all measures possible so that trade unionists might carry out their activities in freedom. While it was true that Convention No. 87 provided for the right of freedom of association, even so, it was necessary to be alive to exercise that right. Union activism was carried out by and for the living, not the dead. The Government must therefore protect civil and political rights. The report of the Committee of Experts had been clear on this point. He emphasized that, each Conference that passed saw the numbers of murdered grow larger, without the Government ever being able to say concretely who murdered them and why. In June 2001, 40 deaths had already occurred - how many would be dead by the end of the year? It was high time for the international community to make greater efforts in helping to find a definitive solution to the Colombian problem and end the killings in Colombia. He fully supported the recommendations made by the Worker member of Colombia.

The Worker member of Argentina regretted that once again the Committee had to deal with the serious situation faced by workers in Colombia. He noted with consternation and deep anguish that the office of trade union executive was grounds for murder. Life and personal freedom were under permanent threat in that country, indeed, there had been 46 trade union murders in the current year. In addition, against that dramatic background, the Government was implementing labour laws which were not in conformity with the ILO Conventions, restricting the right to strike and the full exercise of trade union freedom. There was no doubt that the prohibition of the right to strike in a long list of services, which were not strictly essential and covering a very wide range of activities, was a direct and clear way of preventing the workers involved from striking, aggravated by the lack of alternative ways of resolving collective disputes and the imposition by the Ministry of Labour of arbitration as the only channel for resolving conflicting interests.

He further indicated, as reported in the Committee, that employers used those negative government labour policies to make working conditions even more insecure, by terminating existing collective agreements in order to depress wages and achieve working conditions which better served their economic interests. He underlined that the gravity of the situation in Colombia brooked no further delay. The Committee's decision should be firm and fair. It could not be accepted that situations such as that reported in Colombia should persist. The life, health and freedom of the workers was a high price demanded of peoples.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom listed 47 reasons why the case of Colombia should be noted in a special paragraph of the Committee's report. All of the following 47 murders had been committed this year:

-- 10 January 2001, Edgar Orlando Marulanda Ríos (SINTRAOFAN), murdered

-- 17 January 2001, Miguel Antonio Medina Bohórquez (SINTRENAL), murdered

-- 17 January 2001, Tello Barragán Aldona (vice-president of Sindicato de Loteros del Magdalena - SINDTRALOPE), murdered

-- 18 January 2001, Arturo Alarcón (ASOINCA, affiliate of FECODE), murdered

-- 21 January 2001, Jair Cubides (Sindicato de Trabajadores del Departamento del Valle - SINTRADEPARTAMENTO), murdered

-- 24 January 2001, José Luis Guette (president of SINTRAINAGRO), murdered

-- 26 January 2001, Walter Dione Perea Díaz (ADIDA, affiliate of FECODE), murdered

-- 26 January 2001, Carlos Humberto Trujillo (ASONAL JUDICIAL, Buga chapter), murdered

-- 28 January 2001, Elsa Clarena Guerrero (ASINORT, affiliate of FECODE), murdered

-- 28 January 2001, Carolina Santiago Navarro (ASINORT, affiliate of FECODE), murdered

-- 8 February 2001, Alfonso Alejandro Naar Hernández (Asociación de Educadores del Arauca - ASEDAR, affiliate of FECODE), murdered

-- 11 February 2001, Alfredo Flórez (Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Industria del Cultivo y Procesamiento de Aceites y Vegetales - SINTRAPOACEITES), murdered

-- 12 February 2001, Nilson Martínez Peña (Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Palma de Aceite y Oleaginosas - SINTRAPALMA), murdered

-- 12 February 2001, Raúl Gil Ariza (Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Palma de Aceite y Oleaginosas - SINTRAPALMA), murdered

-- 16 February 2001, Pablo Padilla (vice-president of SINTRAPROACEITES, San Alberto chapter), murdered

-- 16 February 2001, Julio Cesar Quintero (SINTRAISS, Barrancabermeja chapter), murdered

-- 20 February 2001, Cándido Méndez (Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Industria Minera y Energética - SINTRAMIENERGETICA, Loma chapter), murdered

-- 22 February 2001, Edgar Manuel Ramírez Gutiérrez (vice-president of SINTRAELECOL, Norte de Santander chapter), murdered

-- 23 February 2001, Lisandro Vargas Zapata (ASPU, Atlantic chapter), murdered

-- 1 March 2001, Víctor Carrillo (SINTRAELECOL, Málaga chapter), murdered

-- 3 March 2001, Darío Hoyos Franco, murdered

-- 12 March 2001, Valmore Locarno (president of SINTRAMIENERGETICA), murdered

-- 12 March 2001, Victor Hugo Orcasita (vice-president of SINTRAMIENERGETICA), murdered

-- 13 March 2001, Rodion Peláez Cortés (ADIDA), murdered

-- 18 March 2001, Rafael Atencia Miranda (Unión Sindical Obrera de la Industria del Petróleo - USO, Casabe chapter), murdered

-- 20 March 2001, Jaime Sánchez (SINTRAELECOL, Santander chapter), murdered

-- 20 March 2001, Andrés Granados (SINTRAELECOL, Santander chapter), murdered

-- 21 March 2001, Juan Rodrigo Suárez Mira (ADIDA, affiliate of FECODE), murdered

-- 24 March 2001, Luis Pedraza (USO, Arauca branch), murdered

-- 24 March 2001, Ciro Arias (president of Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Industria Colombiana de Tabacos - SINTRAINTABACO, Capitanejo chapter), murdered

-- 26 March 2001, Robinson Badillo (Sindicato de Trabajadores y Empleados de Servicios Públicos, Autónomos e Institutos Descentralizados de Colombia - SINTRAEMSDES, Barrancabermeja chapter), murdered

-- 27 March 2001, Mario Ospina (ADIDA, affiliate of FECODE), murdered

-- 27 March 2001, Jésus Antonio Ruano (Asociación de Empleados del Instituto Nacional Penitenciario - ASEINPEC), murdered

-- 2 April 2001, Ricardo Luis Orozco Serrano (first vice-president of ANTHOC Nacional), murdered

-- 4 April 2001, Aldo Mejía Martínez (president of Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de Acueducto, Alcantarillado y Obras Públicas - SINTRACUEMPONAL, Codazzi chapter), murdered

-- 11 April 2001, Saulo Guzmán Cruz (president of Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Salud de Aguachica), murdered

-- 26 April 2001, Francisco Isaías Cifuentes (ASIOINCA, affiliate of FECODE), murdered

and his wife, L. María Fernandez Cuellar, murdered. Their five year-old son was gravely injured in the attack.

-- 27 April 2001, Frank Elías Pérez Martínez (ADIDA, affiliate of FECODE), murdered

-- 2 May 2001, Darío de Jésus Silva (ADIDA, affiliate of FECODE), murdered

-- 9 May 2001, Juan Carlos Castro Zapata (ADIDA, affiliate of FECODE), murdered

-- 10 May 2001, Engeniano Sánchez Díaz (SINTRACUEMPONAL, Codazzi chapter), murdered

-- 14 May 2001, Julio Alberto Otero (ASPU, Caqueta chapter), murdered

-- 16 May 2001, Miguel Antonio Zapata (president of ASPU, Caqueta chapter), murdered

-- 21 May 2001, Carlos Eliécer Prado (SINTRAEMCALI), murdered

-- 25 May 2001, Henry Jiménez Rodríguez (SINTRAEMCALI), murdered

-- 29 May 2001, Nelson Narváez (SINTRAUNICOL), murdered

He added that he had refrained from citing the names of the more than 50 colleagues murdered between the opening of the last Conference and the end of 2000. Nor had he been able to submit the names of all the children who had lost their fathers or mothers or both in these attacks. Nor had he given the names of the 69 teachers who had received death threats this year. Finally, he regretted that the Government representative had failed to address the issue of the impunity with which these murders had been carried out. There could be no rule of law while such impunity persisted in the context of what appeared to be a systematic attempt to eliminate the trade union leadership in Colombia, aggravated by an increasing level of attacks against ordinary trade union members. However, thankfully, Wilson Borja was present in the Committee, as were other Colombian trade union colleagues who had survived repeated assassination attempts. The names of the colleagues he had cited bore silent witness to a situation which needed to be reflected in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

The Worker member of France observed that the climate of violence prevailing in Colombia against trade union leaders was unprecedented in history according to the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Government and the Employer members pleading in favour of peace civil liberties and human rights - and quite rightfully so - seemed, however, to use a different discourse when it came to trade unions. In practice, many employers impeded through various means (including the confiscation or the retention of trade union contributions) the free exercise of trade union activities. On the Government side, although one should take note of the improvements made to the Labour Code regarding the abusively restrictive provisions denounced by the Committee for years, other problems remained, like the absolute prohibition of strikes called by federations and confederations despite the fact that the right to strike had been recognized in this country. The fact that the right to strike was nevertheless undermined with exaggerated limitations and exceptions in particular in the non-essential public services, constituted an intervention in the right of workers to organize their activities and an excessive legal hindrance on trade union rights. The strike was the ultimate means at the hands of workers to enable them to promote their demands when all other means had been exhausted. Although the exercise of this right could eventually become subject to certain legal rules, its prohibition constituted a fundamental hindrance on freedom of association by virtue of Article 3 of the Convention and also Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The right to strike was one of the legitimate activities of trade unions and fell within the field of application of the Convention on an equal footing with the other trade union activities.

Although the Employers' group had unanimously decided to wage a premeditated escalation and a systematic confrontation against the constant case law of the various supervisory organs of the ILO in a more subtle way since 1998, this should not oblige this Committee to admit this unjustified turnaround. Without the right to strike, freedom of association would be mutilated and weakened and the workers would be left without an effective means of defence against employers. To admit this revisionist proposition to exclude the right to strike from the field of application of freedom of association would also contravene national practices in the area of legal interpretation, which consisted in interpreting texts in light of their fundamental objectives. Moreover, common state practice (based on the criteria contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), often cited by the Employer members) was, but for a few exceptions, not to exclude the right to strike from trade union legislation, but to recognize it and regulate it sometimes excessively.

The Convention did not exist in a legal void and was a component of international law and more specifically, human rights. In this respect, he regretted the fact that the Employer members of his country had supported a restricted interpretation of freedom of association and thanked the Government member of Germany for his analysis which was perfectly honest from an intellectual point of view and should have been supported at least by all the other Member States of the European Union. He underlined that the Government of Colombia had the obligation to promote freedom of association and to do everything in its power to protect trade union members and human rights activists and, more generally, all citizens, from the violations committed by the paramilitary troops and the various armed groups which committed these assassinations, torture and kidnappings and had forced hundreds of thousands of people to become refugees in their own country.

He concluded by inviting the Government to accept the Commission of Inquiry which had been examined by the Governing Body for three years now in order to help the Government meet the requirements of the Convention. He also invited the Government to have recourse to the technical assistance of the Office in order to receive help in the implementation of the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee. Finally, the speaker reaffirmed the strong support of the French trade unions towards the Colombian people and trade unionists in the courageous and permanent action for the respect of fundamental rights and liberties, like the right to life, in the framework of the rule of law and through peace and reconciliation. The seriousness of this case justified its inclusion in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

The Worker member of Mexico noted that, as illustrated by their statements, the workers of the world were deeply concerned by the murders of Colombian workers. The climate of violence existing in the country formed part of a broad campaign by the extreme right to silence leaders who raised their voices against the status quo.

He added that in their condemnation of these acts, the Worker members wished to recall that in the year 2000 there had been an increase of 63 per cent in the number of murders in comparison with 1999, even without taking into account death threats and disappearances of trade unionists. He added that, during the course of the year, 46 trade unionists had been murdered, which demonstrated once again the total impunity existing in the country. Despite national and international pressure, the Government had made no real effort to resolve the situation and guarantee the full exercise of the fundamental right of freedom of association. He believed that it was important to draw attention to the constant violations of freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike, in addition to the other matters raised by the Committee of Experts in its report. Finally, he emphasized that the situation as described justified the inclusion of the case in a special paragraph of the report and the establishment of a commission of inquiry, or any other measure which could resolve the problems of Colombian workers.

The Worker member of Sweden welcomed the very clear description provided by the Committee of Experts in its report of the climate of violence in which Colombia lived, and particularly all of its trade unionists, social activists and defenders of human rights. She added that the Government had committed itself on several occasions in the Committee to achieving full compliance with the provisions of the Convention. However, in reality, violence grew with every passing day and the situation continued to deteriorate rapidly. There was no freedom of association in Colombia. The alarming number of murders, kidnappings, death threats and other acts of violence against trade union leaders and members had reached an unprecedented level in the history of the country. The Committee of Experts had noted that the group most affected by this violence was that of trade union leaders. Since the beginning of the year, a total of 47 trade unionists have lost their lives as a result of this brutal and almost incomprehensible violence.

The Government tended to portray itself as a victim. But the real victims were the 2,500 or more trade unionists who had died between 1987 and 2001. She urged the Government to assume its responsibilities and take measures to bring an end to impunity. Political will, determination and greater comprehension of the contribution that the ILO was offering were all necessary. She acknowledged the prudence of the current Minister of Labour in view of the present situation, particularly since other ministers were bitterly criticizing the trade unions and their calls for the social, economic and political reform of the country.

The Committee of Experts continued to call for the Government to recognize and protect the civil and political rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention, and especially those related to freedom of association. In conclusion, she expressed the firm hope that the Committee's conclusions on the case of Colombia would be included in a special paragraph of its report.

The Worker member of Cuba said that the sheer volume of information on this tragic situation and the statements made by the members of the Committee were so eloquent that there was no need to repeat them. Nevertheless, he felt the need to emphasize that pressure needed to be exerted on the Government through all possible channels to encourage it to take the decisions which would ensure that the impunity that prevailed in the country was brought to an end. The Government needed to guarantee that impunity ceased whatever the situation in the country. Employers and their organizations needed to take on a large part of the responsibility for eliminating violations of trade union rights. Finally, on behalf of the Central Organization of Workers of Cuba, he expressed his solidarity with the members of the Colombian trade union movement, which was honoured by the dignity with which it was combating these extremely difficult conditions.

The Worker member of Uruguay acknowledged the sincerity with which the Minister of Labour of Colombia had made his declaration and he indicated that he sensed the Minister's sensitivity for the subject. He emphasized the observations made by the Committee of Experts regarding the prohibition of the federations and confederations from calling strikes; the prohibition to call a strike for sectors providing essential services and those providing a wide range of services not necessarily essential; the possibility to dismiss the trade union leaders who had intervened or participated in an illegal strike and the power of the Minister of Labour to refer disputes to arbitration when a strike lasted more than a specific period of time.

He pointed out that, despite the direct contacts mission that took place in February 2000, draft legislative texts had been prepared to amend the abovementioned provisions. These amendments had not been made. He asserted that, even though the Minister had informed that these provisions had never been used during his term in office, they were still applicable in the legal system of Colombia. He considered that a special paragraph incorporating the conclusions resulting from the discussion be added, and that any other measures that could contribute towards the resolution of the conflict be taken. He pointed out that on 12 December 2000 12 hired assassins tried to kill the Worker member Mr. Wilson Borja and two of his bodyguards. The investigation led the investigators to link the case to individuals such as active military personnel, retired military personnel, active police personnel and five persons belonging to the paramilitary, including the chief of the latter, in the city of Bogotá. These elements proved that a relationship between the members of the public forces and the paramilitary groups continued to exist. This contradicted the argument forwarded by the Government that these cases were isolated in an attempt to hide the murders of trade unionists and social leaders planned at the headquarters of the Colombian public forces. He confirmed that, since the month of September, the Minister of the Interior had known about the situation and, despite this, had denied to provide increased protection for workers. He emphasized that, during the year 2000, 129 trade union leaders had been murdered and that, in the course of the present year, 46 trade union leaders had already been murdered. He further stated that a trade union leader, Jorge Ortega, in exile in Uruguay, decided to return to his country, and as Vice-President of the CUT was murdered. To this day nothing had come out of the investigation. For this reason, it was important that in this process everyone genuinely participated in the fight against impunity.

He also noted that the agreements between the IMF and the Government had contributed to the restriction of trade union activities. He pointed out that the Colombia Plan tended to foster war rather than peace. He emphasized that changes needed to be made by the people and for the people. Change was necessary for peace, just as peace was necessary for change. Everyone should participate in this process. In conclusion, he hoped that the Governing Body would in the next days appoint a Commission of Inquiry.

Another Worker member of Colombia said that it was true that the Colombian Government was currently pursuing a peace policy and that in the past, the trade union movement had supported and committed itself to such policy. At the same time, however, it should be noted that the Colombian Government, while pursuing a peace process with the guerrillas, allowed and promoted policies which took away with one hand and what they gave with the other. He remarked that on 14 June 2000, the Congress of the Republic had passed a national security bill, introduced by the Government itself, which gave the military forces judicial police powers and allowed them to make arrests without trials and revived the inaptly named "cohabitation" which had been declared unconstitutional in the past, leaving the way open to the paramilitary. He said that the passing of that law had been a backward step to times which they believed that they had left behind when, on evidence cleverly concocted by military intelligence, many trade union members and social militants were tried and arrested arbitrarily. Moreover, that very week, the head of the paramilitary in Colombia had said that he would kill trade unionists because they obstructed work through their many protests. And that assertion had become reality for many trade unionists, including the speaker. Compounded, the Worker member declared in his case and many others, that members of the armed forces, both active and reserve, and members of the paramilitary were involved.

He indicated that the Government had allocated resources of US$2.5 million, but not only for trade unionists but for a number of people under threat in human rights organizations and non-traditional political sectors. He claimed that although murder in Colombia was indiscriminate, that could not be an argument for allowing those responsible to escape punishment. Killing was bad enough but it was worse when the State did not investigate, let alone punish. The Government acted as a victim of the war and not as one of the parties responsible for the war. The level of impunity for violation of human rights was 97 per cent. Certainly stoppages had not been made illegal in recent times, and that was important. He warned that fulfilling an international and constitutional obligation could not compensate for facts such as the 47 trade unionists murdered that year, over 500 others forced into exile abroad and the large number of trade union members and social activists made to move within the country.

He also said that there was no real protection for trade unions. Many had disappeared as a result of the action of employers who considered that organized labour threatened their interests. There were frequent public statements by public officials blaming trade unions for crises in public bodies, thus creating a public opinion hostile to the trade unions. Workers were stigmatized for exercising their rights, and workers' organizations, both members and officials, were pilloried. He wondered how anyone could expect murderers to cease their criminal action when some leading figures, such as the Minister of Finance, stigmatized and singled out trade unionism and workers in general, through the media, as being responsible for the crisis in Colombia.

In the last two years a new phenomenon had been emerging. In many cases where the courts had ordered the reinstatement of trade union members who had been illegally dismissed from their posts, the orders had been ignored. Such, for example, was the case of Caja Agraria and the Banco Agrario, which had been jointly ordered in the final decision to reinstate a number of workers protected by law, and those orders had been disregarded. The same situation had arisen with the Empresa de Telefonos de Bogotá telephone company. He added that the situation was compounded by an economic policy which, in order to fulfil the extended agreement with the International Monetary Fund, the Government had sought to impose without prior consultation using it to bring about the dismissal of a large number of state workers without providing them with any re-employment scheme, cutting their social benefits, adversely reforming their pension scheme and reducing health and education benefits, also by the creation, through a reform of the law, of a frontier labour scheme to encourage the presence of export processing zone companies. Many workers that had been dismissed from public entities were re-employed by subcontractors without any employment contract, outside the social security system and, of course, without any opportunity to organize. He warned that despite reforms introduced in the previous year, the prohibition of strikes in non-essential public services remained, social protest continued to be repressed by the police, federations and confederations were prohibited from calling strikes, it was still possible to dismiss trade union members and trade union officials who had joined a strike that had been declared illegal, the Ministry of Labour was empowered to declare a strike illegal, the power of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when the strike had continued for over 60 days, as well as other provisions which were contrary to the Conventions to which Colombia was a party.

In the view of the Colombian trade union movement, all the foregoing justified putting the conclusions of the discussion in a special paragraph and, furthermore, urging the Committee on the Application of Standards to urge the Governing Body to establish a commission of inquiry on the complaints that had been submitted to it, or seek other mechanisms to resolve the grave situation of freedom of association in Colombia.

The Government member of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the Member States of the European Union and of Norway and Iceland, emphasized that the European Union was deeply concerned about the persistent grave situation of attacks and threats against trade union members in Colombia, with nearly 50 union members assassinated already in 2001. The alarming development of the previous year, when the number of murdered union members increased by 100 per cent compared with 1999, was therefore continuing. The Committee on Freedom of Association had stated that "the scale of murders, kidnappings, death threats and other violent acts against trade union officials and members is unprecedented in history" and that "in general the status of trade union leaders is a fundamental factor in these assassinations".

It was clear that, to a large extent, the paramilitary groups were responsible for the violence against trade unions. However, the European Union also emphasized the responsibility of the Colombian Government to protect its citizens from any kind of violence and to bring any perpetrators of violations against human rights and workers' rights to justice. The European Union urged the Government of Colombia to take urgent and effective steps to ensure the legal and physical protection of those affected. It also called upon the Government to continue its effort to effectively combat the paramilitary groups and to take concrete action to dismantle these groups by arresting, prosecuting and punishing those involved in such activities. The European Union also strongly deplored the persistence of impunity in Columbia, especially in regard to human rights and workers' rights violations, which was a fundamental obstacle to the observance and implementation of human rights in the country.

The violence had now reached such a level that every effort possible had to be made by all the parties concerned to mitigate the escalation of the violence. She urged the Colombian Government and the social partners to cooperate constructively in trying to find every possible measure to address effectively the violence affecting trade union members. She also believed that the ILO could and should play a more proactive and supportive role, assisting the Colombian Government and the social partners in their efforts to develop protection mechanisms, find solutions and at the same time monitor the situation. Since the case of Colombia was on the agenda of the Governing Body following the Conference, and the report of the Special Representative of the Director-General for cooperation with Colombia would be discussed there, the European Union would address the operational aspects of the case in that context. Finally, she emphasized that the only long-term sustainable solution to the situation in Colombia was peace. The European Union therefore welcomed and supported every positive step taken in support of the peace process.

The Employer member of Panama said that the daily violence in Colombia, which was seemingly meaningless, was repugnant and of great concern to everyone. This human shame lay behind the action taken to bring it to an end. Its victims were in their great majority of humble extraction and were not therefore accorded space in the international press. But the blood that had been spilled in the countryside, streets, homes and public places of Colombia cried out for justice. Such deep-rooted violence had its origins in Colombian history. Civil wars had flourished and spread their seeds throughout the nation for over a century and a half. However, he expressed a certain scepticism that a special paragraph in the report of the Conference Committee, a commission of inquiry or the unanimous condemnation of the Conference would really have any effect in putting an end to the abominable spiral of crime. There was as yet no solution and the walls of the Conference room would probably hear many new versions of the human atrocities committed in Colombia. New avenues needed to be explored to find an end to this Latin American nightmare.

He proposed that assistance should be provided for the reconstruction of the judicial system as the only manner of cementing brotherhood and peace. By way of practical action, he emphasized measures to strengthen the links between the social partners and dialogue to achieve peaceful co-existence. The various forms of social protest action should be acknowledged and respected, without prejudice to third parties. Progress in the peace process should be promoted, with emphasis on the observance of human rights and a political solution to the armed conflict. And initiatives should be promoted in the fields of labour legislation, collective bargaining, the definition of essential public services and human resources development. Action in these areas would contribute to giving hope back to Colombians and to developing and having faith in a new judicial system which would provide a secure and trustworthy channel through which levels of conflict could be reduced. He added that the denunciation of a collective labour agreement did not constitute a violation of freedom of association, but was an expression of the desire to renegotiate the agreement reached, which had proven to be inadequate. This formed part of the right to negotiate the working conditions that the partners considered to be most appropriate for their collaboration.

The Government member of Mexico expressed her grave concern at the level of violence in Colombia, which had affected the lives of numerous trade unionists as well as other sectors of the population, including state civil servants, religious leaders and employers. She noted that the Colombian Government had been making enormous efforts to guarantee the safety of union members, despite the difficulties it had faced in this regard. She urged the ILO to maintain and strengthen its cooperative relationship with the Colombian Government so that this climate of violence in the world of work could be overcome.

Another Government representative of Colombia stated that she felt it was her duty to take the floor because, as a Colombian citizen, she deplored the painful situation in her country. It was difficult for others to comprehend the conditions in which Colombians were living and for them to truly grasp the gravity of the situation other than those living in these conditions. Those fighting for human rights, trade unionists, employers, judges and any other persons participating in the process of rebuilding the country, as well as their families, were constantly threatened with loss of life and limb. Only those who faced this reality on a daily basis were in a position to characterize it as a true "hell" . She reiterated that not everyone in Colombia lacked positive and constructive qualities, and that the country was relying on young people who hoped for peace in the future. She called for a genuine and efficient support to help rebuild her country.

The Government representative of Colombia had taken due note of the statements of the workers, employers and government representatives. He indicated that the delegation representing the Government of Colombia included, in addition to him, three Justices of the Colombian High Court, as well as six members of the Seventh Committee on Labour Issues of the House of Representatives of the Colombian Congress. He considered that each of the statements made in the Committee had the objective of finding a solution to the conflict in Colombia, as well as putting an end to the climate of impunity in the country. He indicated that the Colombian Constitution established the principle of separation of powers and expressed the hope that the presence of the Justices would permit a more in-depth examination of the issues before the Committee.

He did not wish to rebut any of the statements made, and he invited the Colombian workers and employers to sit down with the Government to analyse each of the statements and observations made in the Conference Committee. He indicated that each of the sectors involved should undertake to resolve the conflict to the extent possible in order to strengthen social dialogue and cooperation. He confirmed once again that he would continue to act within the framework of the Colombian Constitution and the ILO Conventions. However, there were issues that depended upon other state agencies, as well as upon political will for the establishment of a dialogue between employers and workers. He considered that Colombian judges and legislators should also attend the meeting mentioned.

He indicated his willingness to accept any proposals by the Committee that could help to resolve the different problems in the country, and put an end to acts of violence against union members as well as to impunity. It was not the Government's policy to persecute union members or those fighting for the protection of human rights. This, however, did not mean that the State was denying the possibility that public officials had participated in criminal acts connected with paramilitary activity, drug trafficking and corruption, nor did he deny that other sectors had been involved in this type of criminal activity. In this regard, he noted that the investigation into the attempted assassination of Mr. Wilson Borja had proven that those responsible were members of the armed forces, and indicated that these individuals had been removed from their positions. He added that it was in the interest of the President of Colombia to remove all persons involved in the criminal acts mentioned from public service and that similar measures be applied in all sectors of Colombian society. He reiterated his Government's complete willingness to examine the different initiatives taken on the path to achieving peace in the country.

With regard to the law enacted by Congress, which had been characterized as a law that would promote repressive measures and which implied a return to security policies adopted in the past, he pointed out that this legislation was not the result of a Government initiative, but had its origins in the legislature. Moreover, he questioned the constitutionality of the law in question. He considered that the road to peace lay not with the path taken by the military nor with exercising options directed towards war. Rather, the road to peace lay through the exercise of options directed towards peace. He expressed the hope that the Colombian Constitutional Court would hold that this law was contrary to the fundamental principles contained in the national Constitution.

He regretted having to appear before the Committee in his capacity as Minister of Labour to examine such a painful issue, noting that many government officials had also been the targets of violent acts by those paramilitary groups that considered the President as well as the High Commissioner for Peace to be allies of the guerrillas in light of the negotiations currently being conducted in the ongoing search for peace. He would have preferred to appear before the Committee to address the same issues that affect other developed countries, issues which also affected Colombia. However, he would not attempt to evade his responsibility and he intended to find some way, some solution to put an end to this situation. He believed that all sectors in Colombia should unite to rebuild the country. He recalled that an example of this unity had taken place in 1991 in the Colombian Constitutional Assembly, when all sectors set aside the differences dividing them and successfully established a new constitution for the country.

He requested the cooperation and presence of the ILO and the international community, particularly political assistance, to assist Colombia in achieving peace. He recalled that, in 1980, in his former capacity as union member, he had spoken against the persecution carried out in the country against workers that defended their rights. He considered that, often, for ideological reasons, his warnings had not been heeded. Consequently, the current situation could lead to the destruction of the State if an agreement between the parties were not achieved. He stated once again that all measures were possible to establish democracy and to prevent this situation from continuing in the future. These crimes were a source of shame for humanity, and he reiterated that the unions had always had his support, and even employers knew he would take care to protect the rights of workers.

The Worker members considered that their preliminary statements and the comments made by different speakers had stated their objectives clearly. In light of the tragic situation in Colombia, the Worker members requested that the Conference Committee observe a minute of silence in honour of their murdered brethrens.

The Committee kept one minute of silence in honour of all victims of violence in Colombia.

The Worker members thanked the Committee and requested that the conclusions of this case be included in a special paragraph of the report of this Committee.

The Employer members noted that the discussions had been quite emotional, which was justified in view of the gravity of the situation in the country. Priority had not therefore been given to discussing issues of labour law, since the reasons for the situation in the country were not to be found in the state of the national legislation, but in the climate of violence, as illustrated by the number of victims who were mourned by the country. They therefore concluded that the ILO's contribution could only be small and that the problems had to be solved by Colombians themselves, particularly since it was not within the ILO's competence to intervene in the problems that had been described. However, the Committee should express its deep concern in its conclusions and the demands of the Worker members should be taken into consideration. Although the contribution that the Conference Committee and the ILO could make to resolving the situation was naturally only minor, it nevertheless constituted an important signal. Finally, they supported the proposal of the Worker members to include the conclusions of this Committee on this case in a special paragraph.

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Government representative and the subsequent debate. In its previous conclusions the Committee had observed with great concern the significant and persistent discrepancies between the legislation and practice, and the provisions of the Convention had given rise to several complaints to the Committee on Freedom of Association, and a complaint submitted by a number of Worker members to the International Labour Conference in June 1998, under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO relating to non-observance of Convention No. 87.

The Committee noted that the Committee of Experts had expressed its deep concern at the climate of violence which existed in the country and the scale of murders, kidnappings, death threats and other violent acts against trade union members which was unprecedented in history. The Committee strongly condemned the murders and acts of violence against trade union officials and kidnappings of employers, despite the Government's efforts to protect them. The Committee took note of the information on the development of the peace plan and hoped that there would be progress as a result, in particular with regard to compliance with international humanitarian law and the pursuit of negotiated political solutions to the internal conflict. The Committee, which had discussed that case on many occasions in the past, observed that the Committee of Experts had noted significant progress in the application of the Convention with respect to the majority of the legislative provisions that had been referred to the Committee of Experts. The Committee further observed that the Government was committed to promoting measures relating to the other provisions on which the Committee of Experts had commented. The Committee considered that strengthened social dialogue between the social partners would be the best way of conducting that activity.

The Committee noted with concern that many complaints concerning violent acts and discrimination against trade unionists continued to be submitted to the ILO. The Committee recalled that full respect for civil liberties was essential for the application of the Convention. The Committee emphasized that the climate of impunity in the country represented a serious threat to the exercise of trade union freedom. The Committee urged the Government to take further steps to bring legislation and practice into full conformity with the Convention in the near future. It expressed the firm hope that the Government would provide a detailed report to the next meeting of the Committee of Experts with news of greater progress in legislation and practice to ensure the application of that Convention and recalled that it could call on the technical assistance of the Office in the context of that process. The Commission expressed the firm hope that at its next meeting it would be in a position to take note of real progress in the country's trade union situation. In that respect, the Committee noted that the complaint submitted under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO was pending before the Governing Body. The Committee expressed the hope that the Governing Body at its next meeting would take appropriate, effective and necessary measures to deal with that complaint.

The Committee decided that its conclusions would appear in a special paragraph in its report.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2000, Publication: 88th ILC session (2000)

A Government representative stated that the Government was attending the Committee with a view to providing all the information that was considered necessary in relation to Convention No. 87. The Government had shown the will to maintain a permanent dialogue which was broad, transparent and sincere with employers, workers and the ILO, as well as to provide the necessary information to the Committee concerning the progress which had been made.

The Congress of the Republic had approved Bill No. 184, submitted by the Government, which amended, repealed and introduced significant changes in the legislation to bring it into conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. He emphasized that the scope of the right of association had been extended and that greater autonomy had been accorded to trade union organizations, with the elimination of the statutory restrictions on the membership and registration of trade unions and the empowerment of the civil authorities ("alcaldes") to register them. Furthermore, the simple notification of changes in their by-laws would be sufficient for their recognition. These measures would ensure compliance with Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention. Collective action was allowed in the event of the retention of wages, and sanctions had been eliminated, such as the prohibition on the right of freedom of association of leaders who caused the dissolution of a trade union. The conditions of nationality and the exercise of a specific occupation in order to be a trade union, federation or confederation officer had also been abolished. Federations and confederations would be strengthened by facilitating the payment of contributions by trade unions. The protected status of trade union leaders was extended to public servants and the issue of leave for trade union activities was regulated. Moreover, the procedure for demonstrating the status of trade union leaders had been simplified.

The above legislation constituted significant progress and included modern institutions for its application, as recognized by the ILO. The legislation made it possible for parties to collective bargaining to be workers in the branch, industry or economic activity. It also gave trade unions the option to request or refuse the presence of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security at meetings where, following direct bargaining, the decision was taken to refer the dispute to an arbitration tribunal or to call a strike, and its participation was restricted to monitoring votes. Now only workers who were on strike could decide to end the strike and submit outstanding disputes, if they considered it appropriate, to an arbitration tribunal without the intervention of the labour authorities. The legislation also took into account the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning the powers of inspection of the labour administration authorities, by eliminating the powers of officials to initiate inspections and controls, leaving it to the request of the trade union and/or second- and third-level organizations.

With regard to some of the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerning the exercise of the right to strike, he noted in the first place that the Government had prepared draft legislation defining the essential public services. The subject had been included on the agenda of the Permanent Committee for Concertation on Wage and Labour Policies, which was a tripartite body. Once the study had been completed and a definitive text agreed with the social partners (employers, workers and the Government), it would be submitted for approval to the Congress of the Republic. He informed the Committee that the preliminary draft had been examined by the ILO experts during the direct contacts mission and had taken in their principal recommendations. This preliminary draft also established an alternative procedure for the determination of legal and illegal strikes, assigning the competence in this respect to the labour courts.

The Government of Colombia had fully demonstrated its commitment to promoting the independent exercise of the right of association by workers' organizations through the submission to the Congress of the Republic of draft legislation lifting the current restrictions. It should be emphasized that the above legislation was the outcome of agreement between the social partners, thereby demonstrating their common commitment to the development of a new culture of labour relations based on social dialogue and concerted action. The complete text of the legislation respecting freedom of association had been provided to the ILO by the Government with the request that it should be made available to the members of the Committee. The Government representative expressed her gratitude to the ILO for the unrestricted support which it had provided in the process of reforming the legislation.

The Worker members recalled that this case had been discussed repeatedly over the past decade and that the conclusions of the Committee had been taken up in a special paragraph on two occasions. Direct contacts missions had taken place in Colombia in 1996 and in February of this year. Numerous complaints of violations of freedom of association had been filed and new complaints regarding anti-union discrimination and violations of the right to collective bargaining had been filed recently by several trade unions. During the 86th Session of the Conference, a complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution had been filed.

In addition, the Worker members recalled that the Committee of Experts had raised in the past three major questions. The first concerned the requirements for the creation of a trade union and in particular the clauses establishing requirements of Colombian nationality, professional experience, and a clean police record. The second question related to the provisions respecting compulsory arbitration and the restrictions on the right to strike. Finally, the third question concerned the climate of violence and impunity that reigned in the country. They had taken note of a draft Bill introduced by the Government with the intention of abrogating a series of legislative provisions which were not in conformity with the Convention. However, they observed that the Committee of Experts had concluded that many provisions still created problems, especially those relating to the supervision of the internal management of trade unions and trade union meetings. Another provision which continued to pose problems with regard to the Convention concerned the powers accorded to the officials of the Ministry of Labour to call before them trade union leaders or members to require them to provide information on their work, and to present their books, registers, plans and other documents. The Worker members observed that since the Government's promise to submit the Bill, there had been no follow-up. In fact, instead of progress, it seemed that the situation had deteriorated after the adoption on 30 December 1999 of Act No. 550, which represented a direct infringement on freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.

In addition, the Worker members noted the observations of the Committee of Experts according to which some provisions relating to the exercise of the right to strike, which had been the subject of comments for many years, had not been taken into account in the amendments proposed in the Bill. The provisions concerned, among other matters, the prohibition of strikes in several public services and the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who had participated in a strike. Regarding the exercise of the right to strike in practice, they referred to the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1916 according to which the concept of essential services had to be interpreted in the strict sense of the term. In this respect, the Worker members supported the views of the Committee of Experts and once again called upon the Government to take the necessary measures for the amendment of this provision.

The Worker members expressed their deep concern regarding the situation of violence which prevailed in the country against workers and trade union members. Devastating accounts had been provided by national, regional and international workers' organizations in relation to the anti-union violence. They raised questions about the actual respect of freedom of association in the country. Since June 1998, at least 125 trade unionists had been assassinated, and since November 1999 the number already amounted to 39 trade unionists assassinated. According to information from various international trade union confederations, of the 123 trade union members who had been murdered in the world in 1998, a total of 98 were Colombian. Moreover, of the 1,336 trade union members who had been assassinated in Colombia between 1991 and 1999, no fewer than 226 were trade union leaders. This continuous violence which mainly affected trade union members in the country was quite simply intolerable, since they were targeted in their capacity as trade union members and workers. In fact, their commitment and public activities made them systematic targets, as proven by many testimonies. The impunity of the assassins was total and the impotence of the Government was intolerable, particularly since, when ratifying Convention No. 87, it had undertaken to ensure the minimum conditions for its effective application. The Worker members once again emphasized the necessary interaction between ILO instruments and the principles set out in its Constitution in order to create a climate of social peace. Finally, they urged the Government to bring its law and practice into conformity with the principles of freedom of association in the broad sense. This necessarily involved the creation of a political and legal climate and the adoption of concrete provisions which put an end to impunity and anti-union terror. They therefore proposed that the Committee's conclusions should be included in a special paragraph.

The Employer members recalled that the Committee had examined the case of the application of the Convention by Colombia frequently. The observation by the Committee of Experts contained a list of discrepancies with the provisions of the Convention which were of differing significance. In the view of the Employer members, those points relating to the right to strike did not give rise to any violation of the Convention, since the issue of the right to strike was not in their opinion governed by Convention No. 87. However, many of the other points raised concerned clear violations of freedom of association. They noted that, with ILO assistance, some amendments had been drafted and that the resulting Bill had been approved in its first reading in the Congress in July 1999. The question clearly arose as to the number of readings required before the Bill would finally be passed into law. The draft amendments resolved 11 problems enumerated by the Committee of Experts with regard to the application of the Convention. In this respect, the progress achieved should be recognized, since the legislation in question had given the authorities broad powers to interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions.

The Employer members recalled that the Committee of Experts nevertheless continued to criticize the proposed amendment to section 486 of the Labour Code on the grounds that it empowered the State to exercise control over the internal management of trade unions. They noted the statement by the Government representative that courts of arbitration had been established in the country. However, information was required on whether the courts could carry out arbitration procedures independently without the interference of the State. The Employer members agreed with the assessment by the Worker members that the whole process had taken place in an extremely violent climate. They emphasized that while this background information was important for the overall understanding of the case, the Government was still obliged to give effect to the provisions of the Convention in national legislation. Even a situation which was similar to civil war should not be used as an excuse for failing to meet these requirements. In conclusion, they called on the Government to provide information on the number of readings required for the adoption of the draft amendments and on the time which would be required to complete the legislative process. However, many restrictions on freedom of association still remained in the country. In this respect, the draft amendments to many of the existing provisions which were in violation of the Convention constituted a first step in the right direction.

The Worker member of Colombia indicated that once again, the workers in general and Colombians in particular were witnessing the lamentable spectacle of a Government attempting to deflect the attention of the international community with reports and excuses which did not reflect the true situation in Colombia in respect of Convention No. 87, freedom of association and respect for human rights. The Government made great use of a huge capacity to confuse the members of the Committee with matters such as Bill No. 184, which had been approved last week but had not yet received assent. While the legal aspects concerning Convention No. 87 were a cause for concern, as had been very precisely expressed by the Workers' spokesperson, the truth was that the workers were concerned by many issues which today affected all Colombian workers and people. The Government was aware of the existence of a Bill on labour flexibility which, if approved, would give rise to discussions in this Committee for many years to come. The same was true of the Social Security Bill, as well as the negative impact of Act No. 550 of 30 December 1999, which in itself constituted a serious threat to workers, collective bargaining and freedom of association. To this should be added deep concern for the resurgence of the status of non-unionization or "profit plans" which were practices intended to hinder the trade union movement, violating the provisions of Convention No. 87.

Various circumstances made it necessary to discuss this case. Thirty-nine trade unionists had been assassinated since the beginning of this year, almost 2 million people had been displaced by violence, there was an unemployment rate of 22 per cent, the informal economy had reached 56 per cent, there were rural workers without land and indigenous people affected because of badly named "development", and, in general, a situation of democratic instability reigned. These facts encouraged the Workers to look to the international level in the hope of finding initiatives which would soon contribute to a change in the situation. It was necessary to stress that while the Government spoke of a draft bill to determine essential public services, the workers' organizations had not been consulted in this respect. The Ministry of Labour had shown complacency with regard to the dismissal of thousands of workers, particularly in the public sector; at district level, for example, over 40,000 workers had been dismissed in the last 14 months. The Ministry of Labour had also authorized dismissals of workers in the private sector, for example in the Tennis Club of Cúcuta. It was not possible to speak of freedom of association when in the current year workers were denied freedom of association through the prohibition of the right to collective bargaining in the entire public sector and the freezing of salaries by decree. Finally, he pointed out that the Colombian people were dependent upon the decisions of the ILO and that it was appropriate to include this case in a special paragraph so that the Government would not yet again forget the promises it had made to this Organization.

Another Worker member of Colombia, refuting the Government's statement that questions concerning violent acts against trade union leaders and trade unionists should not be discussed in this body, referred to the resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties adopted by the Conference in June 1970 and emphasized that the concept of trade union rights lost all meaning when civil liberties were not respected and the right to life was not guaranteed. The theme of violence against the trade union movement had to be mentioned, as well as the difficulties in forming trade unions in Colombia. On many occasions, trade unions had to be formed clandestinely so that workers would not be dismissed by their employer or by public entities. In this respect, he referred to a quote from a Colombian guerrilla who had stated that it was easier to organize an insurgent group than to form a trade union in Colombia. He wondered in these circumstances how the Colombian authorities could refuse to discuss the question of assassinations and violent acts against trade union leaders and members. He indicated that, while the law to bring some legislative provisions into conformity with the freedom of association Conventions had just been approved in Colombia, the problem was one of the non-application of numerous existing laws. For example, he pointed out that Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 had been ratified by Colombia in 1976, yet year after year their application continued to be discussed. He stressed that the ILO should continue to follow what was happening in Colombia in respect of the violation of these Conventions. There was great respect in Colombia for the ILO and great expectations on the part of workers for what the ILO could accomplish in defending their interests. In this respect, he called for a special paragraph so that the Government would react and in this way could indicate next year that it had complied with the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the comments of the Committee of Experts.

The Worker member from the United States considered that the physical integrity of Columbian unionists could be seriously affected by a proposed 1.6 billion dollars aid package destined to the security forces for the prosecution of the internal conflict against drug traffickers and the guerrillas. Tragically, Colombian unionists were being purposely targeted by all armed parties in the conflict. In February of this year, the AFL-CIO had adopted a resolution and joined the Colombian labour movement in calling for the respect of core labour rights as necessary preconditions to the passage of the United States aid package to Colombia. He recalled that the Committee of Experts had pointed out that the new amendments to the Labour Code allowed the Ministry of Labour to conduct inquests and investigations of trade union activities, even when there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal offence on the part of the trade unions. He mentioned that one question of non-compliance had not been mentioned by the Committee of Experts. This question was the fact that neither the Collective Bargaining Law No. 50 nor the current Labour Code effectively permitted the establishment of collective bargaining representatives and mechanisms per national sector and industry, thus limiting trade union and collective bargaining representation to the local and enterprise level. He emphasized that physical violence against Colombian unionists and the issue of impunity remained totally unresolved and appeared to be worsening. In this regard, he criticized the Government for arguing that this issue was irrelevant to Convention No. 87 and recalled that the Government had specifically objected to an ILO commission of inquiry by asserting that the assassination of unionists was not systematic, but the result of the endemic violence in the society. To that argument, he replied that Article 8 of Convention No. 87 stated that the laws of a country should not impair the exercise of the rights contained in the Convention. He questioned whether that could be a greater hinderance to the exercise of the rights contained in Convention No. 87 than a justice system which failed to effectively stop, deter and remedy violence purposely directed against workers or employers. Furthermore, he recalled that the human and labour rights resolution adopted during the ILO Conference in 1970, drew the nexus between core labour rights and the right to physical security and protection from arbitrary detention. Over 2,000 Colombian unionists had been murdered in the last ten years. The Human and Labour Rights Programme of the Escuela Nacional Sindical of Colombia had found that the vast majority of trade union assassinations in 1999 had taken place during periods of collective bargaining and collective worker action. Finally, he insisted that since this case had been before this Committee on so many occasions and without substantial improvement, this Committee should do nothing less than cite it in a special paragraph.

The Worker member of Costa Rica recalled that the Colombian case had been discussed in the Committee for many years. The very clear link between the legal situation and the barbarous acts committed daily against trade unionists could not be denied. There was a situation of generalized aggression towards workers, which was demonstrated by labour legislation which hindered collective bargaining in the public sector, which permitted interference by the administrative authorities in trade union affairs, as well as in the dismissals of workers for strikes declared illegal because this right was denied to workers, and in the impunity in cases of assassinations, kidnapping and imprisonment of trade union leaders and members. This situation obliged the Committee to place this case in a special paragraph, since it concerned the violation of human rights in the broadest sense of the term. He maintained that, if the Committee wanted to cooperate for an improvement in the situation in Colombia, its conclusion could not simply consist of offering ILO technical assistance, but rather of condemnation by the international community.

The Worker member of Guatemala asserted that the Colombian case and the systematic violation of Convention No. 87 had been dealt with by this Committee over the last 15 years at least. He supported the statement by the Worker members and insisted that the situation which Colombia was experiencing was dramatic. The Commissioner of Human Rights of his central trade union systematically requested the Colombian Government to respect and ensure respect for freedom of association and the right to organize. He indicated that, despite the observations of the Committee of Experts, the situation of trade unionists continued to get worse, particularly as a result of the assassinations committed by the dark forces and interests in the country. Trade unionists and civil societies of the world could not be indifferent to the situation of the Colombian trade union movement. He added that it was urgent to know the measures which the Government had taken and intended to take to put an end to the trade union slaughter. Finally, he supported the inclusion of this case in a special paragraph.

The Worker member of Uruguay recalled that Colombia had ratified Convention No. 87 in 1976 and that 20 years later the Committee was receiving the Minister of Labour, who was convincing it that Colombia was going to amend its legislation, which unfortunately had not happened. Today, neither the Minister nor the Deputy Minister were present to try to discuss and seek solutions to the situation of violence and pain which is being experienced by Colombian workers, provoked by the numerous murders and the lack of protection under which they had to carry out their activities. He maintained that it was the Government's responsibility to protect trade union action. The present Government and earlier governments had not complied with and were not complying with Convention No. 87 and there was also evidence of a will to continue violating the Convention in such areas as the right to strike. The Committee of Experts had referred to comments by a trade union organization concerning the non-deduction of trade union subscriptions. This proved that, in addition to seriously violating the Convention through death threats and assassinations of trade unionists, the Convention was also violated in matters of less importance. Finally, he asked for this case to be mentioned in a special paragraph and expressed his confidence that next year the Government would present genuine and concrete solutions.

The Government member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Governments of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, welcomed the efforts undertaken to support the peace process. However, he noted with great concern that several provisions still did not comply with the requirements of Convention No. 87, even though this case had been raised repeatedly over the years in the observations of the Committee of Experts and in the Conference Committee. With reference to the right to strike, he noted the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1916, which had been approved by the Governing Body at its March 1999 session, and strongly emphasized that a declaration of illegality regarding a strike should be made by a judicial or an independent authority, not by the Government. He also noted that the Governing Body would decide whether or not to establish a commission of inquiry at its session in June 2000. Finally, he urged the Government to take measures to bring the provisions in question into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association and expressed hope that the Government of Colombia would be able to report positive developments next year so that everybody could be ensured of the effective application of the Convention.

The Worker member of Cuba emphasized the repeated violations which had occurred in Colombia for many years now and which had been addressed in this and other meetings. He expressed his great concern at the grave situation endured by Colombian trade unionists and his profound solidarity with them. Persecuted Colombian trade unionists were to be found in all the countries of Latin America. He firmly insisted on the fact that the subject of the deaths of trade unionists could not be ignored, whether or not it was technically linked to the discussion of the observation of the Committee of Experts. He expressed the hope that the situation of violence and the legislative problems could be resolved rapidly and stressed that the peace process was a matter of urgency.

The Employer member of Colombia, commenting on the previous statements by the Worker members, stated that it also bothered the employers to have to come before bodies like the present Committee. He expressed the employers' permanent condolences for the death of Colombian compatriots, including trade unionists. The employers were respectful of the law and carried out their business activities within it. He emphasized the enormous efforts made by the Government in the peace process and the national accord. He stated that the Bill referred to by the Committee of Experts overcame the large majority of questions raised and added that it had already been discussed and approved by Congress (Senate and House), and was presently being considered by the President of the Republic for his assent, in accordance with the procedures in force. He stressed that, during the negotiation of the Bill in the Senate and the House, many points had been agreed upon with the workers' and the employers' representatives. No agreement had been reached only in respect of section 486 of the Labour Code and, with the agreement of the employers and workers, the ILO had been requested to provide a final opinion, which had been reflected in the text of the Bill. He indicated that the Committee on Negotiation of Labour Policies and Wages was discussing two subjects: occupational training and the definition of essential public services in which strikes could be prohibited. This demonstrated the employers' will to support initiatives for improved coexistence and harmony in the country.

The Government representative referred to the difficult situation which Colombia had experienced for over 40 years due to the internal armed conflict and stressed that in the last two years it had been possible to bring the parties in the conflict to the negotiation table. One of the parties would be coming to discuss a ceasefire on 3 July 2000, which would help to change the problem of violence. He emphasized the great progress which had been made in bringing the national legislation into conformity with ILO Conventions, in particular Convention No. 87. In this respect, he mentioned Act No. 50 of 1990, which had introduced very important amendments and innovations; the 1991 Constitution which consecrated the rights of association, strike and collective bargaining and which established that ratified Conventions were part of national legislation; Act No. 278 of 1996 which created the tripartite Negotiation Committee; and Bill No. 184, approved by Congress at the end of May, which was before the President of the Republic for signature and which included the points raised by the Committee of Experts. He said that a document indicating clearly the changes made in the sense requested by the Committee of Experts had been submitted to the Conference Committee. In February 2000, the direct contacts mission had taken note of the draft bills prepared by the Minister of Labour on essential public services where strikes could be prohibited and disputes submitted to compulsory arbitration by one party, and on the right to collective bargaining of public employees which permitted them respectfully to present their demands to the authorities. The mission had made proposals for the modification of these draft bills which included summary recourse to the judicial authorities against decisions taken by the administrative authority declaring a strike illegal, the inclusion of the expression "collective bargaining of public employees" in one of the draft bills, the right to strike of federations and confederations and the replacement of compulsory arbitration after 60 days of strike action with compulsory arbitration agreed to by both parties. The draft bills and the modifications proposed by the mission were being examined, taking into account in particular that some matters had economic repercussions. Subsequently, the bills would be submitted to the social partners in accordance with existing legal mechanisms. Article 29 of the Constitution guaranteed due process including in the administrative procedures. Finally, he informed the Committee that the Minister of Labour could not come this week, but that the President of the Republic had already established, within the framework of the peace process, negotiations on pensions, employment and taxes, where certain issues raised by earlier speakers would also be discussed. These negotiations would include employers, workers, the Church and civil society.

The Worker member of Colombia, commenting on the motives behind the absence of the Colombian Minister of Labour in this Committee and the reasons expressed by the Government representatives for this, indicated that it should be explained that negotiations were under way which, in principle, the workers had decided to attend in order to discuss specific subjects, but that the absence of the Minister was due in reality to the fact that the Government was experiencing a serious political crisis.

Another Government representative stated that a special paragraph was not justified, especially since the current Government had achieved important progress which had not been possible at earlier times. In particular, the Act approved by Congress and the other bills covered all of the points raised by the Committee of Experts. The progress achieved had been the result of work carried out jointly by the Government with the ILO through machinery and negotiation. Furthermore, the current Government was committed to the peace process. As concerned the questions posed by some speakers on the climate of violence, he stated that the Government was not avoiding the debate but rather that this debate would take place shortly, in the corresponding body, with the Minister of Labour present.

The Worker members, after having heard the various speakers, observed that no progress had been made in relation to the observations of the experts. The accounts which had been heard confirmed that in Colombia the worker members of trade unions were exposed to violence due to the exercise itself of the commitment which they had undertaken in favour of workers in their quality as trade union members. They repeated their deep concern confronted with a situation which lasted since almost 20 years and which, due to its gravity, figured on a quasi-permanent basis in the agenda of the Conference Committee or the Committee on Freedom of Association. They asked one more time that the conclusions would be included in a special paragraph. The Worker members regretted not having been able to share their evaluation of the situation with the Employer members during the discussion. They firmly insisted one more time on the gravity of the situation in that country and deplored the fact that the Colombian workers had paid with their lives in too many cases.

The Employer members agreed that it was necessary to take into account the overall situation in the country. They recalled that for many years the Committee of Experts had been drawing attention to many provisions in the national legislation which violated the Convention. Now many of these points were being resolved by means of the draft legislation which had already gone through Parliament, but which still needed to receive presidential assent. Nevertheless, the Committee of Experts still considered that one of the proposed amendments contravened the provisions of the Convention. With regard to the comments by the Committee of Experts relating to the exercise of the right to strike, the Employer members reiterated their view that this matter could not be addressed within the context of Convention No. 87. The Employer members noted that all speakers had emphasized the importance of the civil disturbances and conflicts in the country. Nevertheless, these should not be used as an excuse for the maintenance of provisions which were in violation of the Convention. The situation in the country was indeed very serious and affected all the parties concerned. But the problem was of a political nature and could not be addressed solely through the Convention. The draft amendments contained very significant changes which the Committee of Experts had been requesting for many years. It was nevertheless the duty of the Government to examine any points which were still pending and to provide a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on the concrete measures taken and the adoption of the draft legislation.

The Committee took note of the oral information supplied by the Government representatives and of the discussion which ensued. The Committee noted with great concern that the long-standing and major discrepancies between law and practice and the provisions of the Convention had resulted in several complaints before the Committee on Freedom of Association and a formal complaint presented by a number of Workers' delegates at the International Labour Conference in June 1998 under article 26 of the ILO Constitution concerning the non-application of Convention No. 87. The Conference Committee had discussed the application of Convention No. 87 on many occasions without being able to note progress in the implementation of the Convention. The Committee recalled, once again, that the Committee of Experts insisted that the Government should remove all the obstacles that hinder the right of workers to form and join trade unions of their own choosing, to elect their representatives in full freedom and the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities without interference from the public authorities which restrict or impede their lawful exercise. The Committee noted the information supplied by the Government representative that draft legislation was adopted by Congress on 29 May 2000. It stressed that it was for the Committee of Experts to examine the compatibility of this legislation with the legal requirements of the Convention. However, it noted that new complaints concerning in particular anti-union violence were still being lodged with the ILO. The Committee recalled that the full respect of civil liberties was essential to the implementation of the Convention. It urged the Government to take further measures in order to bring its legislation and practice into full conformity with the Convention at an early date. It expressed the firm hope that the Government would supply a detailed report to the coming session of the Committee of Experts on genuine progress made in law and practice to ensure the application of this Convention. The Committee firmly hoped to be in a position to note at its next session concrete and definitive progress in the trade union situation in the country.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1998, Publication: 86th ILC session (1998)

A Government representative, Minister of Labour, stated that his Government accepted the observations of the Committee of Experts, but deemed it necessary to present certain reflections about the labour legislation in force with respect to the mandate and the Conventions of the ILO.

Since 1991, with the adoption of the new political Constitution of Colombia by the National Assembly of the most pluralistic character, unprecedented progress had been made in all that pertained to the world of work. Suffice it to say that according to the Constitution, international labour Conventions duly ratified by the Congress of the Republic become part of the internal legislation, which meant that 51 Conventions ratified by Colombia were of direct application. In addition, according to the Constitution these Conventions have a priority in the internal order as regards the instruments concerning human rights, which was the case regarding ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Section 53, paragraph 4, of the political Constitution stipulates that "duly ratified international labour Conventions form part of the internal legislation". Section 93 of the Constitution states also that "the international treaties and Conventions which recognize human rights and prohibit their limitation in exceptional situations, have a priority in the internal order. The rights and duties established in this charter shall be interpreted in conformity with international treaties on human rights ratified by Colombia". These principles of labour law have been guaranteed also by means of a special judicial mechanism (accion de tutela) which permits any person affected by the violation of a fundamental right to approach any judicial authority and solicit protection through an expedited procedure. Through this mechanism, numerous cases of the violation of trade union rights were resolved and freedom of association received an effective guarantee of legal protection.

The Government remained convinced of the importance of the standard-setting activities of the ILO and of the social benefits which, by the incorporation of the international labour standards into internal legal order to the workers, were brought to workers, employers and the society at large. Recently, the Congress of the Republic had considered and approved Conventions (No. 144 on tripartite consultations, No. 151 on labour relations in the public service, No. 161 on occupational health services, No. 162 on the safe use of asbestos, and No. 174 on the prevention of major industrial accidents), which were now in the process of ratification. Before the Constitution of 1991, one could speak of certain limitations of the exercise of freedom of association in Colombia. This situation no longer existed: the right to free association provided in Convention No. 87 was elevated to a constitutional principle, as well as the right of workers and employers to establish unions and associations without government interference and with immediate legal recognition (article 38 of the national Constitution).

With respect to the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning Convention No. 87, the speaker stated that measures to implement them were delayed due to the problems of legal order. In 1996, there was an important technical assistance mission on freedom of association which had jointly elaborated draft laws to bring national legislation into line with ratified Conventions which were submitted to the Congress of the Republic but which had not yet gone through the process of approval. Nevertheless, they have served as a model to adopt administrative measures and to prepare a draft implementing decree which regulates Acts 26 and 27 of 1976 concerning the ratification by Colombia of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. It is important to inform this Committee that while certain laws, which were considered to be contrary to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, were still in force, the Government considered, in accordance with its previous arguments, that they were to be repealed and that with this in mind it would solicit the necessary action to proclaim their unconstitutionality. All possible means of action were explored: presentation of the draft law which took account of the Committee of Experts' observations, the adoption of an implementing decree and the beginning of the court action concerning unconstitutionality.

Referring to the observations of the Committee of Experts on Convention No. 87, the speaker indicated that the report mentioned the following Colombian labour standards which contradict the provisions of this Convention:

-- Section 365(g) on the requirement that, in order for a trade union to be registered, the labour inspector must certify that there is no other union. This provision aimed at preventing parallel trade unions in the undertakings, and workers would no doubt agree with its implementation in order to strengthen the labour movement.

-- Colombian legislation on the need to be of Colombian nationality to hold executive office in a trade union, on the requirement that in order to form a union, two-thirds of its members must be Colombian (section 365(g) and section 384 of the Substantive Labour Code). It would be hard to find another Constitution in the world which would be as generous in recognizing the rights of foreigners and giving Colombian nationality to foreigners as the present Colombian Constitution. Suffice it to look at some European constitutions to appreciate that the Colombian Constitution starts by proclaiming the possibility of obtaining a Colombian nationality on the basis of principles ius soli and ius sanguinis. It is also provided that foreigners could obtain Colombian nationality without being obliged to renounce their original nationality. Such provisions were unprecedented and few countries in the world could claim the same generosity. This legislative activity was not due to any specific motive, as there were no significant groups of foreigners engaged in employment in Colombia. The political Constitution of Colombia extended to foreigners the same civil rights which Colombians had, but for reasons of public order, the law could regulate those rights. However, the national legislation did not violate the Constitution or the Convention; foreigners could join trade unions but could not control a trade union or hold executive office in it.

-- Section 486 on the supervision of the internal management of trade unions and meetings of unions by public servants. The presence of public servants had for its purpose to ensure respect of the qualified majority provided for in trade union statutes, for example in case of strikes. It was often members of the trade unions themselves who asked for the presence of public servants in case of internal conflicts, in such cases the mission of the public servant consisted in collecting evidence which would eliminate conflicts in the future. It was believed that such activities had no impact on the independence and autonomy of the trade unions.

-- Section 380(3) which provided for the denial of the right of trade union association up to three years to any trade union executive who had been responsible for the dissolution of a union. Act No. 50 of 1990 abolished the administrative authority of the Government to deny the right in the above-mentioned cases; it lay now with the judicial authority when it was proved that the trade union executive was responsible for the dissolution or suspension of a union. Taking into account that such dissolution had to be declared legally, section 380(3) of the Code did not violate the Convention.

-- Section 422(1)(c) on the need to have exercised the activity, occupation or position characteristic of the trade union in order to hold a trade union office. This provision did not carry a risk of jeopardizing trade union rights, because in the first place it was applied to the industrial trade unions and, secondly, one could belong to the activity, occupation or position characteristic of the trade union, without actually exercising this activity. The administrative authorities only required certification of the years worked in the undertaking and of belonging to the respective sector of activity. The nature of a trade union required that its executives had the same profession as members. Another serious question to be studied was the possibility of becoming a career trade union executive.

-- The right to strike of federations and confederations. The Ministry of Labour consulted all social partners on the question of developing and strengthening the trade union movement by promoting industrial unionism, which would entail broadening the rights of federations and confederations. Also, the draft implementing decree extended the same rights which were attributed to basic unions to their associations of the second and third levels.

-- The power of the Minister of Labour and Social Security and of the President of the Republic to intervene in case of conflicts (sections 448 and 450 of the Code). During the present Administration, this power had not been used, except at the request of the trade union. His Government acknowledged, however, that this provision effectively violated Convention No. 87.

-- The possibility of dismissing trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (section 450(2) of the Code). The ILO supervisory bodies recognized the legitimacy of dismissal in case of an unlawful strike and the Convention requires workers' organizations to respect the law. Therefore, this provision did not violate the Convention. With respect to the right to strike and certain administrative restrictions applied to it mentioned on page 187 of the Spanish version of the Committee's report, the speaker stated that the new political Constitution of Colombia of 1991 recognized the power of the Congress of the Republic to determine public services to be considered essential, and this legislative work was in process. For the time being the situation was covered by five laws: Act No. 100 of 1993, section 4: with respect to the general social security system in health and pensions, the essentials were the activities directly related to the establishment and payment of pensions; Act No. 142 of 1994, sections 1 and 4: applied to the public domestic services for the maintenance of water supply, waste disposal, electric energy, distribution of gas, and basic telephone services, both fixed and mobile in the local and rural sectors; Decree No. 407 of 1994, section 11: the functions pertaining to the national custodial services and prisons; Act No. 270 of 1996, section 125: administration of justice considered to be an essential public service; Decree No. 336 of 1996: public transportation by air, sea, railway and road. It appeared that the right to strike belonged to the category of constitutional rights in Colombia, which required corresponding adjustment of the labour legislation, making inapplicable certain sections of the code actually in force and giving the possibility to repeal those which contradict those rights.

He stated that taking into account the new legal situation in the country which determined the priority of the Conventions over the internal legislation and their direct application, the Minister of Labour and Social Security had convened a group of the specialists in the legal sciences under the head of the expert in labour law and interpretation of the ILO standards, in order that it initiated the procedure before the Constitutional Court of Colombia to declare unconstitutional the provisions of the Substantive Labour Code and other labour laws which were contrary to the letter and spirit of the ILO Conventions ratified by Colombia. In this way, the constitutional procedure avoided the complexity of the legislative debate or the risk that once the regulating decrees referred to had been adopted, legal obstacles could impede their future application. The situation was still not ideal with respect to the legislation and because of this, the Government would try to contact workers' organizations to reach agreement on better provisions.

Referring to the problems of violence in Colombia, he indicated that the situation with respect to the violation of human rights was neither desired, nor sought by the social actors represented here -- government, workers and employers. This situation however had degenerated in a prolonged armed conflict from which there was no escape for the various social and human groups: the society at large was affected including trade union members and their leaders. In this complex and extremely delicate situation, the Colombian Government established and applied consistent policy in matters of peace, human rights and international humanitarian law, which pursued a double aim to find a negotiated solution out of the armed conflict and to protect and promote respect for human rights and for the humanitarian law in favour of the civil population. With respect to the peace policy, it was important to mention the creation of the National Peace Council composed of the state bodies and the organizations of civil society, including the catholic church, which had acquired considerable respect from the conflicting parties and the support from the Government to the network of initiatives of citizens for peace and against the war which had obtained the support of 10 million Colombians. Being conscious of the importance of the cooperation of the international community in facing the problem of violence, the Colombian Government had requested the establishment in Colombia of the office of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, which started its activities in April 1997.

He referred to the declaration on Colombia adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights during its 54th Session celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights: "The Commission (of human rights) recognizes a set of important policies and measures adopted and implemented by the Government of Colombia in the area of protection and defence of human rights and its will to cooperate with the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bogotá, with the special reporters and working groups of the Commission, as well as its readiness to continue and reinforce these relations." Neither the international community nor Colombia could have arrived, in this respect, at a decision different from that adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights after a long period of study and consultation.

As regards the human rights of workers, the Colombian Government and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security in particular have pledged their full support to the promotion of fundamental rights to life, personal freedom and freedom of association. The Colombian Government paid special tribute to this topic not only as part of the exterior image of the country, but rather as an effective political will to introduce corrections in the situation recognized as unacceptable and incompatible with the democratic and civil character of Colombian institutions. An advisory group in human rights was established directly under the minister with the mandate to assist and advise the Inter-Institutional Commission for the human rights of the workers. Since its establishment, progress had been made in the design of the information system on acts of violence against trade union leaders which would provide a foundation for the supervision and fight against impunity. Nevertheless, murders and horrible crimes against trade union leaders occurred and threats continued to be directed towards trade union leaders and activists. The Government condemned such acts and offered to take action to capture and punish the guilty. The Government considered that trade union organizations occupied an important place in society, and that the search for a more real and concrete peace and social justice should carry on. Finally, he indicated that he identified himself with the just cause of trade union organizations.

The Workers' members declared that the case of Colombia was a case which caused extremely serious concerns. The Committee had already discussed the application of Convention No. 87 in this Committee in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997. In 1989 and 1990 this case was mentioned in a special paragraph. It should be noted that the comments by the experts also referred to problems raised in relation to Convention No. 98. In 1996 a direct contacts mission to Colombia was conducted. Five cases were presently pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Workers' members recalled that last year, when this case was examined by the present Committee, two major concerns had been expressed: on the one hand, with the assistance of the ILO, the Government had prepared two Bills which would conform to the comments by the experts. The comments made in the report of this year concerned discrepancies between law and practice and both Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. On the other hand, this Committee had expressed its serious concerns regarding the condition of violence and lack of enforcement of laws which prevailed in the country and which was specifically directed against workers and trade unionists.

The Committee of Experts noted that the Government stated in its report that the Congress of the Republic had decided to shelve the Bill intended to ensure compliance with the Convention and that it was going to resort to other legal means to do so. Furthermore, the second draft bill concerning essential public services did not seem to have been pursued either.

As regards the second main concern, that is the measures the Government envisaged to undertake to curb the violence exerted against workers and trade unionists, the Committee of Experts made no reference to any new information. This seemed to imply that no such information had been reported by the Government. However, the news transmitted by Colombian trade unionists, as late as during the present session of the Committee, evidenced extremely serious conditions. Only last week, 26 workers had been captured and found assassinated. According to information provided by the UN Committee on Human Rights, 127 trade unionists had been murdered in 1997 for political reasons. Several trade unionists had been abducted and had disappeared; in addition, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights had condemned the legal system and, in particular, the regional courts. According to the High Commissioner these courts had confirmed the arrests of trade unionists without respect for the legal procedures. These regional courts condemned the trade unionists solely because they exercised their trade union rights.

As in the previous year, it should be reiterated that an interaction between the ILO instruments and the principles contained in the Constitution was an indispensable condition for the creation of, to cite the direct contacts mission of 1996, "a climate of social peace and a progressive elimination of the social conditions causing injustice, poverty and deprivations".

The Workers' members remarked that no progress had been noted regarding the bringing into conformity of legislation with the Convention. On the contrary, it seemed that this process had to be re-initiated. As regards the troublesome situation concerning anti-trade union violence, no information had been provided by the Government regarding the measures it intended to take in order to halt the anti-trade union violence and, more specifically, the attacks against trade unionists.

In view of this double challenge, the Workers' members proposed that the Committee in its conclusions invited the Government to accept a direct contacts mission in order to: (1) assist the Government of Colombia as well as other political decision-makers, such as the Congress of the Republic, with a view to eliminating, without delay, the obstacles which impeded the adoption of regulations which would bring the legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention; and (2) obtain information on the serious acts of anti-trade union violence and, together with the competent authorities as well as worker and employer organizations, identify the measures required to halt the crimes committed against trade unionists to create a climate of social peace and to set up and maintain the rule of law.

The Employers' members recalled that this case had been examined eight times in the last ten years. In 1996, an ILO mission on freedom of association had taken place where a Bill had been elaborated which in the end was not adopted by Congress. The Employers' members pointed out that the 12 points which were the subject of the observations of the Committee of Experts would have been remedied to a great extent through the adoption of the Bill. Turning to the observation of the Committee of Experts on the legislative provisions concerning the right to strike, they referred to their position which was different from the position of the Committee of Experts. Despite the difference of opinion in this respect, they said that the other points which had been noted by the Committee of Experts had demonstrated that freedom of association was not being respected. Turning to the Government representative's suggestion to examine whether the proposals established under the Bill could be inserted into the national Constitution, the Employers' members felt that this procedure would not lead to a positive outcome in view of the fact that not a single Bill had been adopted thus far. However, the Government representative had provided a lot of information on a large number of points mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts. The Government representative had indicated that Conventions, once they had been ratified, were directly applicable at the national level and had priority over other laws. However, Convention No. 87 enshrined principles which should be adopted into national legislation and also implemented in practice which had been particularly difficult. Referring to the Government's intention to examine those legal provisions which were contrary to the requirements of Convention No. 87 and to declare these provisions to be unconstitutional, the Employers' members doubted that the executive body was empowered to do this. Furthermore, the Employers' members pointed out that the problem not only concerned Convention No. 87 but also the entire society which was characterized by an atmosphere of violence. In addition, trade union activists as well as managers of enterprises had been discriminated against, abducted or murdered. This situation showed that freedom of association did not exist in this country. The Employers' members concluded that this Committee should express its deep concern in its conclusions in which not all the individual points raised by the Committee of Experts needed to be reflected in order to illuminate the grave situation as a whole. The Government should be urged to take the appropriate action and supply a report in the very near future.

The Worker member of Colombia stated that this was not the first time that the Minister made promises and a year after broke his word. He hoped, however, that in this case full adherence would be given to the promises made to the workers and to the international community. He stated, with regret, that the situation with respect to human rights had not improved in Colombia. The proliferation of violence affected the whole of the Colombian society but particularly workers and the civil population, each time increasing concern for the impunity for the violence committed. The persistent policy of threats and attacks on social activists formed part of the strategy to demoralize and demobilize workers' organizations. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Colombians (more than 98 per cent) were good, peaceful, hard-working people, whose only objectives were to bring peace to the country, to establish freedom, democracy and development in which all Colombians would have access to education, basic needs, health, social security and employment. In reality, it was a tragedy to observe that more than 1 million people had fallen victim to the violence and that more sacrifices were still expected in the future. The issue of trade union rights was intimately related to the question of human rights, and the report of the Committee of Experts contained very detailed references to the very important violations of Convention No. 87. The present Minister of Labour, who had held office for only a few months had assumed the responsibility to respond today for those who had been irresponsible in harmonizing Colombian labour legislation with ILO Conventions and Recommendations, and who had not kept their word. The right to collective bargaining was nullified for public employees and the draft act referred to in this Committee had no effect and placed public employees in a very disadvantaged position; in this respect, it was very important that the Colombian Government said that real possibility exists for it to assume a serious commitment in this matter. On the other hand, the report of the Committee of Experts stated, as it had already stated a few years ago, that Colombia had promised to modify its labour legislation to guarantee freedom of association and today also mentioned the possibility of adopting a labour statute under the Constitution, but Colombian workers had no knowledge either about the draft of such a statute, or about the fate of the draft presented by the workers with more than 1 million signatures. Conversely, Colombian workers were concerned by the practice of some enterprises which were literally engaged in liquidating workers and their organizations by persecution, plans of "voluntary resignation", temporary contracts and the enforcement of what was now being called "the statute of non-unionized" -- a very dangerous instrument against the trade union movement which guaranteed different rights for non-unionized workers with the aim of decreasing the rate of unionization as in the aviation sector. There were other enterprises which resorted to this unacceptable practice as, for example, in certain social clubs which put pressure on their syndicalized workers to resign and replace them with small cooperatives working on a subcontractor basis, undermining the application of the labour law, the presence of the trade union movement and leaving the workers with no trade union protection and social security. In this context, it was also very important that the Government committed itself to defending trade union rights preventing the appearance of such anti-union practices. He also expressed his disagreement with the information provided on the significant progress in labour legislation and the system of health protection and social pensions, because the situation in reality was completely different. Finally, he requested the minister to state clearly what would be done for the thousands of workers dismissed during the past years, including those dismissed by the governors and mayors without the application of any sanction. He asked that this Committee establish and send a commission of inquiry which would be very useful in the actual situation.

Another Worker member of Colombia stated that the most important reason for which the Colombian Government was being asked to reply to this Committee, was the serious attacks on human rights in his country. More than 2,500 trade unionists had been assassinated in the last ten years without anyone being imprisoned for those crimes; a high number of displaced persons and refugees in the neighbouring countries and the profound cuts in the social, family and labour issue attested to the gravity of the situation. This Committee had repeatedly heard the accusations made by the representatives of Colombian workers of the practices called "penalization for the social struggle". One could easily show how the legislation which pretended to suppress terrorism and drug-trafficking always ended up being used against trade union activists, social and political leaders. This legislation did not permit a due process, admitted secret evidence, witnesses with a hidden identity testifying against the same person, called "cloned witnesses", and above all, which permitted the negotiation of light sentences to those who were truly responsible and the infliction of much more severe sentences on the innocent who had been declared culpable in an arbitrary and unjust way. While a debate had been opened concerning the application of this type of justice, with more and more people adhering to the demand of its dismantlement, the Workers were preoccupied with the fact that it had led to the wide use of all types of manipulations which "justify" or pretended to "justify" action threatening freedom and integrity of the trade union leaders, members of NGOs on human and political rights.

While Mrs. Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, launched an important call for the defence of human rights in the plenary sitting of the Conference with respect to the report concerning Colombia presented to the 54th Session of the Committee on Human Rights two months ago, certain security organs of the Colombian Government claimed that, 15 of 100 guerrilla groups continued to be active militarily and 85 provided a logistic and political support to the rebellion forces integrated in social and trade union organizations, legal political movements and organizations in defence of human rights. One could imagine the consequences of such an absurd appraisal of the situation on the part of the national security organs for a country with conditions such as in Colombia.

The speaker stated that about one-and-a-half months ago in Bogotá Dr. Eduardo Umana Mendoza was assassinated. He had been a resolute defender of human and trade union rights and had vehemently denounced the impunity and the lack of guarantees for the exercise of trade union activities in Colombia, and had ensured the legal defence of trade union leaders in the petroleum industry.

The Colombian workers thanked the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Committee of Experts and this Committee for the concern they had been expressing for more than ten years and for the action taken by various ILO bodies in order to make Colombia fulfill its obligation with respect to the observance of trade union rights. There had been so many trade unionists killed and forcefully displaced, so many victims of other violations, and impunity was so widespread that it made no sense to continue talking about statistics. The time had come for the international community and the ILO to take very concrete action to help the Colombian people to resolve the grave crisis of human rights in the country. In this respect he supported the request made by his fellow Worker member of Colombia, that a commission of inquiry be established with the mandate to consider everything related to trade union freedom in Colombia. In conclusion, in the memory of more than 2,000 trade unionists assassinated in Colombia in the last ten years, he invited the Committee to observe a minute's silence.

The Worker member of Argentina declared that, following demands by the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers (ORIT), his office had had to protect certain trade unionists who had been forced to leave their country because of reiterated death threats. He emphasized that the report of the Committee of Experts highlighted that the Congress of the Republic of Colombia had decided to shelve a legislative reform which was aimed at amending legislation in force with a view to bringing it into conformity with ILO standards and to guaranteeing freedom of association for Colombian trade unionists. The situation was all the more serious as workers and trade union leaders were presently deprived entirely of protection. In 1997, 156 workers and trade union leaders had been assassinated and approximately 100 had been forced to leave their homes because of the threats they had been subjected to. The authorities had not manifested any particular intention to investigate the innumerable killings, abductions and other attacks. Progress could not be noted either as regards the functioning of the Committee for the Protection of Human Rights that the Government of Colombia had undertaken to set up. No legislative developments concerning collective bargaining in the public sector could be noted. The trade unions which legitimately opposed employer abuses were subjected to legal repressions. Enterprises resorted to criminal pursuits against trade union leaders which were treated with a certain amount of complacency by the courts. The right to strike had been thwarted, although it was assured in the Constitution. Trade union leaders were dismissed following participation in strikes, and they were wholly unprotected. The Minister of Labour who was conferred with excessive powers that were used in a discretionary and arbitrary fashion, was authorized to declare a strike illegal. As was evident, the Government -- contrary to its undertakings -- had no interest in protecting the life, security and activities of workers and trade union leaders, nor in making any efforts to modify the legislation. The speaker therefore concurred with the proposals of the Colombian workers and insisted that the violence and the various attacks against human rights in Colombia be halted and that a commission of inquiry be accepted by the Government.

The Worker member of Germany said that he did not wish to go into the individual points since this case concerned the overall situation in Colombia. He pointed out that trade union leaders had been murdered or discriminated against in various ways, therefore this Committee should express its greatest concern about the situation in the country. He pointed out that not only trade union members but also attorneys representing them, had been victimised. This climate of violence was illustrated by the case of Dr. Mendoza, a well known attorney in the field of human rights, who had been murdered on 18 April 1998 in his office in Bogotá. Turning to the Government representative's statement he pointed out that no concrete measures had been taken but that the Government representative had restricted himself to calling the above acts "terrible and criminal". For this reason the Government representative should be asked to indicate what concrete measures had been taken to remedy the situation in his country.

The Worker member of Iceland, speaking on behalf of the Workers' members of the Nordic countries, indicated that the Colombian Government seemed determined to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Convention No. 87 by taking no measures whatsoever to ensure the proper implementation of this instrument in its country. Once again this Committee had heard terrible stories of violence carried out against trade unionists. A few examples were as follows: in 1997, it had been reported that 156 trade union leaders and members had been murdered in Colombia. The climate of violence still appeared unchanged this year. The Government could say that these murders were isolated incidents of crimes committed by criminal groups and that it could not be held responsible. However, in order to be able to accept this as an explanation, evidence needed to be brought to this Committee to the effect that the Government was doing something to better the situation. Regrettably, nothing seemed to indicate that this was the case. On the contrary, evidence seemed to reveal that instruments of the Government were being used to undermine trade union activity. In March, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had condemned the regional justice system of Colombia for violating guarantees of due process and Amnesty International had expressed serious concerns of a similar nature in its recent report. Therefore the real problem in relation to the failure of the Government to abide by the obligations arising from the ratification of Convention No. 87 seemed to be the complete absence of political will. All over the world, democratic forces and respect for human rights were ensuring the peaceful overthrow of dictatorships and creating a better society for all. In order for such a development to occur, courage was needed; courage to let go of the old system of social repression and courage to allow the people of a country to enjoy their basic human rights. It was quite obvious that such progress and democratic developments could not occur under circumstances such as those that still prevailed in Colombia.

The Worker member of France emphasized the strong feelings that this case aroused and which justified the high number of interventions. He noted that the statement by the Government member of Colombia sought to be reassuring but the facts and realities stood in contradiction thereto. He considered that the basic problem was the absence of the rule of law and of traditional means of law enforcement. The speaker recalled that the promising developments in 1996 (which the ILO contributed to), aimed at amending various provisions in the major labour code had been rejected by the Congress of the Republic. The Minister of Labour was considering the possibility of re-submitting to Congress the above-mentioned provisions amending the labour law. The speaker questioned, however, the credibility of such a proposal, as the Congress of the Republic had already rejected the first draft. The speaker proceeded to recall certain statistics: in 1997, 156 trade union leaders had been assassinated. He noted that this figure included 61 teachers, in addition to the four who had disappeared which represented more than 50 per cent of the murdered trade unionists. He also cited the example of the events that took place on 7 March 1996 when the Secretary-General of the FENSUA-GRO was killed in his office. In addition, he mentioned that on 26 March, the Prosecutor General threatened to arrest eight trade union leaders on charges of forgery of documents and fraud. With reference thereto, the speaker considered that the non-application of Convention No. 87 could only help to serve the paramilitary groups which attacked trade unionists as even the public authorities did not seem to respect the provisions of Convention No. 87.

The Worker member of Spain stated that the principal problems did not concern the legislation or the Constitution, but resided in the absolute impunity enjoyed in relation to the crimes which were being committed. It had been pointed out that not one of those responsible for the offences had been convicted. The commission of inquiry that had been proposed during this discussion could be of use if it was committed, with valour, generosity and courage, to contributing to making peace possible. The ILO and the United Nations could not stand by passively when faced with the violence going on in Colombia. After deploring the massive murders of trade unionists that had recently occurred, he payed homage to the CUT for its struggle in favour of human rights and trade union rights.

The Government member of Norway made the following statement on behalf of 12 countries: Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and his own country, Norway. He pointed out that the situation in Colombia had been discussed at the Committee's meeting the previous year. The Committee had expressed profound regret at the climate of violence which affected the lives and physical integrity of trade unionists. He stressed that in recent years Colombia's deepening human rights crises had been the focus of increasing international attention. The Government had not supported the necessary legislative measures in respect of bargaining, as reflected in the report of the Committee of Experts. He supported the Committee of Experts' call for the Government to provide reports clarifying the situation in this regard. However, as serious as these restrictions were, they existed in an overall context of extreme violence, which included many trade unionists among its victims. He expressed his firm hope that substantial progress would soon be noted concerning civil and political rights, which were essential for the exercise of trade union rights, inter alia, through the co-operation with the Office representing the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bogotá and with the continued assistance of the ILO. Finally, he expressed the hope that the Government would soon take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation and practice into full conformity with the Convention.

The Worker member of Guatemala stated that it was sad and worrying to note that the very year of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Convention No. 87 and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, these instruments remained wholly unapplied in Colombia. The Government did not ensure that the life of its citizens was protected although this was its prime responsibility. In this context, the repression and systematic persecution of the trade union movement in Colombia should be condemned. Impunity and social injustice prevailed in Colombia, without any prospects for improvement. The workers were tired of the unkept promises. The Government representative should clarify which policies it intended to follow, in order to resolve the problems mentioned, to ensure an effective application of Convention No. 87 and to guarantee peace as well as democracy.

The Worker member of the United States stated that given the systemic, structural and chronic violations of freedom of association in Colombia and given the continued barbaric and despicable violations of the physical integrity of trade unionists in Colombia, the United States Workers' delegation joined with the Colombian and other Workers' delegates in demanding the despatch of a commission of inquiry. Anything less would be shamefully inadequate.

The Government representative of Colombia thanked all the speakers who took part in the discussion. He supported the statements made by the workers of various countries when they expressed their solidarity as well as condolences with the Colombian workers and the people of Colombia in general regarding the recent murders of workers perpetrated by paramilitary groups. He also showed his appreciation for the observance of a minute of silence requested by the Workers who wanted to express their discontent with regard to the violence in Colombia. While he noted some inaccuracies in the statements of certain speakers regarding legislative matters, he decided not to comment on those statements since he felt that the main problems were of another nature. Concerning the statements regarding human rights violations, he reiterated that the special body of the United Nations for Human Rights recognized that the Government of Colombia had adopted a set of important policies and measures in the area and defence of human rights. Taking into account this declaration, he considered that the specialized bodies on human rights should be the competent authorities to deal with such issues. Nevertheless, he did not deny the existence of human rights violations in Colombia. In this respect, state agents who had committed such violations had been sanctioned. Moreover, he asked the question as to whether, facing such violence by paramilitary and guerilla groups, other countries would have been able to maintain the state of law as well as Colombia did. Concerning the possibility of declaring unconstitutional certain provisions of the Labour Code, he stated that this was proof of the good will of the Government to comply with the observations of the Committee of Experts. Regarding the Workers' request for the establishment of a commission of inquiry, he hoped that the appropriate procedures would be referred to the Governing Body of the ILO. If the Governing Body were to decide on such a course of action, after an examination of the government reply, he assumed that such a commission of inquiry would receive the cooperation of the Government.

The representative of the Secretary-General answered the Workers' members' request for information on the commission of inquiry. After reading out the relevant provisions of article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO, he indicated that a complaint had to be presented in writing or, in the present case, by a delegate to the International Labour Conference. The Secretary-General of the Conference would subsequently present the complaint to the Officers of the Governing Body, and then to the Governing Body itself for a decision on the receivability of the complaint and on the adoption of any measures considered useful or necessary. In any case, the complaint should identify the facts clearly and indicate which provisions of the Convention or Conventions were allegedly not being fulfilled. In conclusion, he pointed out that this Committee had no competence to pronounce on the admissability of complaints under article 26 of the ILO's Constitution.

The Committee took note of the oral information supplied by the Minister of Labour and the long discussion which followed. The Committee recalled with great concern that the longstanding and major discrepancies between law and practice and the provisions of the Convention had been discussed by the Conference Committee on a number of occasions. It deeply deplored that from the cases brought before the Committee on Freedom of Association it appeared that anti-trade union violence continued, including the death of a great number of union leaders and activists. The Committee expressed its deep concern that the rights regarding the freedom of association Conventions were violated in their very essential aspects. It noted, with regret, that no progress had been made in ensuring greater conformity with the Convention despite the assistance provided by an ILO mission on freedom of association in 1996. The Committee recalled that a Bill was then prepared to repeal and amend a number of provisions which were not compatible with the requirements of the Convention but that this Bill had been shelved by the Congress. The Committee once again urged the Government to take concrete steps to bring the provisions of the Substantive Labour Code and the corresponding decrees, which contradicted Articles 2, 3 and 10, into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It insisted, in particular, on the need to lift the wide powers of supervision over union affairs granted to the administrative authorities, the prohibition on setting up more than one union at the plant level, the excessively high number of Colombian workers required to form a trade union, the important restriction on the eligibility of trade union officials and on the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes for furthering and defending the interests of workers. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on the concrete progress made both in law and in practice to ensure the application of this fundamental Convention ratified more than 20 years ago. It took note of the statement made by the Government representative that there was readiness to communicate with the Governing Body if a written complaint for a commission of inquiry was transmitted to the Governing Body.

During the discussion, the Committee observed a minute of silence in memory of those trade unionists who had been murdered in Colombia.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1997, Publication: 85th ILC session (1997)

A Government representative stated that he would address two topics which had been raised by the Committee of Experts concerning the application of the Convention by Colombia. First, he would refer to the existence of an "initial draft of a Bill" on essential public services and regulation of the right to strike in those service sectors. Second, he would explain how the Bill modified and derogated certain provisions of the Substantive Labour Code.

In regard to the first point, it should be reiterated that the Government of Colombia had the will to harmonize a text, with participation of the employers' and workers' parties. The Government was aware of the complexity of the topic, especially the legal aspects, which signified a reconsideration of criteria with a long tradition in the legal order of the country. The Government was ready to recommence a participatory process of analysis and debate.

In respect of the second topic, in November 1996, the Government presented to the Congress of the Republic for consideration the above-mentioned Bill, No. 190/96, ratified by the Senate, which modified and derogated approximately ten sections of the Substantive Labour Code. In this manner, the observations of the Committee of Experts had been acknowledged.

One might note that the Committee of Experts had noted with interest the Bill and had expressed its hope that the Government would present it to Congress, which had been done.

The Bill was not an isolated act of the Government, much less a simple announcement for a way to escape criticism in this forum. On the contrary, it was an indication of a government policy oriented toward the promotion and respect of human rights, with special emphasis on the international labour Conventions which Colombia would fulfil.

The speaker also referred to the punishment of social protest and indicated that a committee had been created for the revision of the penal laws and the lifting of summary discretion concerning certain penal processes related to workers. As well, he referred to a Bill on collective bargaining and collective contracts in the public sector, 18 articles of which had been agreed upon by the social partners.

Progress by Colombia on this issue had been notable. It had made advances in fulfilment of its obligations with respect to the ILO. It was worth recalling that Colombia's reports over the years had been subject to the scrutiny of the Organization and the Conventions had been sent for approval to the Congress of the Republic. The Committee of Experts had already cited Colombia in its General Survey on Freedom of Association as a "case of progress" for its advances regarding the Convention.

The Workers' members thanked the Government representative for the information provided orally, and recalled that the case of Colombia had been discussed on several occasions by the Committee, in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1995, and that it had even been mentioned in a special paragraph in 1990. The enhancement of social dialogue announced by the Government at the 1995 session, which had been favourably received, had apparently produced positive results. Based on the report of the freedom of association mission undertaken in October 1996, following the Government's request to the Conference Committee in 1996, and on the report of the Government, the Committee of Experts was able to note with interest that a Bill, prepared with the assistance of the ILO, had been submitted to the Congress of the Republic for approval, which seemed to constitute a positive response to several of the questions raised by the Committee. Furthermore, a preliminary draft of a Bill, on which the Office had made comment, defined the concept of essential public services and regulated the exercise of the right to strike. The Workers' members emphasized that these legislative amendments should be in full conformity with the requirements of the Convention and with the principles of freedom of association, and referred to the observation by the Committee of Experts which specified in detail all the legislative provisions which were being repealed or amended. They expressed their firm hope, as had the Committee of Experts, that the proposed Bills would be submitted to the Congress of the Republic as soon as possible and that the corresponding Acts would be adopted in order to bring the whole legislation into conformity with the Convention and the principles of freedom of association.

In spite of these legislative developments, however, the Workers' members lamented the serious situation in Colombia, notably the prevailing conditions of extreme violence. The testimonies were overwhelming and the list of violations of the principle of freedom of association, in particular of the provisions of the Convention, was endless. According to information obtained from Workers' members, extreme violence was used against persons acting as trade union leaders. They were subjected to attacks on their personal freedom and physical integrity, including assassinations. The assassination of the trade unionist José Leitos, chairman of the CGTD, was a clear example. The report of the mission emphasized that "there is reason to be most concerned by the climate of violence prevailing in the country which affects all sectors but which has grave consequences for trade union leaders and members (...) the number of victims continues to be extraordinarily high and the legal proceedings to examine the facts result in extreme levels of impunity". The Workers' members requested that the Government instantly take the measures necessary for the effective implementation of the legislation under preparation, as the best of laws would remain a dead letter as long as such violent conditions persisted. They concluded by stressing the importance of viewing the instruments of the ILO and the principles contained in the Constitution not as isolated or limited instruments, but rather as components of a necessary and essential interaction. Restating the conclusion of the mission, they underscored that "it was clear that the problem of violence, together with new measures and new financial assistance, could only be efficiently tackled in a larger context of instituting social peace. Social peace must be based on social justice and the progressive elimination of the social conditions which cause injustice, misery and deprivation". They asked the Government to continue to indicate progress on the projected legislative amendments, and to state in detail the measures it envisaged to undertake in order to contain the escalating levels of violence and to create a political and social environment which favoured an effective application of the principles and Conventions of the ILO to which it had subscribed.

The Employers' members thanked the Government representative for the general statement and the important news that he had provided. The Committee had discussed this case on seven occasions since the mid-1980s and had had cause to note the complexity and problematic nature of the situation in Colombia. The observation of the Committee of Experts referred to 11 different points, which showed that up to now there had been a very large degree of state interference in freedom of association and the right to organize. The legal provisions in question had permitted interference in the affairs of trade unions and had placed major restrictions on strikes. Although the Employers' members did not consider that all of the restrictions in question violated the Convention, its principles would undoubtedly be violated if no strikes were possible in practice. The Government representative had referred to a draft Bill amending the Labour Code which appeared to respond to many criticisms that had been made up to now. Although it was for the Committee of Experts to give its view on the final version of the text, the indications were that many of the provisions that had been criticized would be either repealed or amended, with the result that the legislation would be brought either partially or entirely into conformity with the Convention. The Government representative had also stated that further amendments were planned and had provided information on other Bills which were under preparation or had been submitted to Parliament. It was important that any of the draft texts which had not been transmitted to the Office should be sent as soon as possible with a complete report so that the Committee of Experts could give its opinion rapidly.

The Employers' members recalled that, on the occasions that the Conference Committee had examined the case in the past, the response that had always been given focused on the violent situation in Colombia, which pervaded all spheres of life in the country. In this climate of violence, violent acts were perpetrated against individuals and trade unionists, as well as against other categories of the population and against the whole of society. The amendments that had now been submitted, as well as those which were under preparation, would provide a good basis for influencing the climate of violence in a positive manner so as to avoid the circumstances which had been a cause of concern for some time. The Government should report on the latest developments and complete the proposed reforms as soon as possible in order to give effect to the considerable changes that had been announced.

The Workers' member of Colombia stated that there was no doubt about the Government's intentions to harmonize the legislation with the ILO Conventions; but, in this case, a real commitment was needed to fulfil the pledges made. The more open attitude of the Minister of Labour towards solving conflicts in the country should be recognized, but these conflicts were generated by government policies. He emphasized that his main concern was the climate of violence and impunity in which the country struggled. In this context, he condemned the various forms of violence, which involved state terrorism, the repression and violation of human rights by the security forces, and the violent and criminal work of paramilitary organizations, which operated in some places with the tacit approval of the authorities as private militas. In the same manner and with equal emphasis, he condemned the kidnappings, ambushes, and attempts perpetrated by guerrilla groups.

The Government had undertaken, with assistance from the ILO, to harmonize all of the laws with the Convention. None the less, it was near the end of the current legislative session, and the rights to organize, to bargain collectively, and to strike remained limited by law.

He denounced the current imprisonment of the Union of Petrol Workers (USO) on charges of terrorism, based on accusations made by military intelligence bodies. The situation had reached the limits of irregularities, and the Attorney General had initiated investigations against the faceless officers with assumed names who provided the same testimony many times against the petrol union leaders.

The violence which continued affected freedom of association in Colombia in various ways. In 1996, there were 256 assassinations of trade unionists; in 1997, approximately 50 deaths, including the President of the CGTD in Tolima, Mr. José Isidoro Leyton, and trade unionist Victor Julio Garzón, who had participated in the ILO direct contacts mission in October 1996. In 1997, 16 trade unionists had disappeared and several hundred others had been forcibly displaced because of their trade union activities. Threats and intimidation were constant practices, about which the ILO should be concerned.

From 11 to 18 February 1997, a work stoppage was held by public sector workers and, as a result, an agreement was signed with the Government. None the less, due to non-compliance on the part of the Government, the workers were obliged to stop work for 24 hours on 11 June to obtain compliance with the agreement. The Government's response was to deny signing the agreement, which would complicate the situation in the immediate future.

He called on the Government to set out before the Committee the commitments the Government would assume to resolve these problems and suggested it receive an ILO mission, with the goal of closing the cases mentioned.

The Workers' member of Spain deplored the fact that, despite the promises made to the ILO, none of the Bills which had been elaborated had been enacted. He was concerned that the present law permitted the administrative authorities to declare a strike illegal (section 450 of the Substantive Labour Code), in grave violation of the Conventions, and that power to issue such declarations ought to be placed with the judiciary as the clearest expression of freedom of association. He was also concerned by the interference of authorities in the internal affairs of the unions. For example, out of a total of 143 requested modifications of statutes concerning essential issues of freedom of association, 99 were rejected by the administrative authorities. The most grave issue was, none the less, the number of assassinations of union activists: from 1 January to 22 May 1997, 30 union activists were killed, including Victor Julio Garzón and José Giraldo. He observed that in reality, between the guerrillas and the paramilitary forces, trade unionists were fighting for peace.

The Workers' member of the United Kingdom described the unhealthy working conditions endured by Colombian workers, as illustrated by an ICFTU video showing women, including pregnant women, working in greenhouses to produce flowers in the presence of noxious sprays which caused blindness, miscarriages and premature births. Also terrible was the daily loss of life in Colombia, and particularly of the men and women who were active in the trade union movement, who risked their lives to fight for better conditions of work in the country including improved health and safety conditions. The Committee on Freedom of Association had noted that many cases of acts of violence remained unsolved, largely due to the fact that few cases were heard, proceedings were slow and prosecutors could not or dared not carry out investigations because their lives were endangered. Freedom of association could only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental human rights, and particularly those related to human life and personal safety, were fully respected and guaranteed. The killing, disappearance or serious injury of trade union leaders and activists required the institution of independent judicial inquiries and the punishment of the guilty parties. Failure to bring the guilty parties to judgement created a situation of impunity which reinforced the climate of violence and was extremely damaging to the exercise of trade union rights.

She called upon the Government to take urgent action to strengthen the judicial system and hoped that the Commission for the Revision of Penal Standards would set a dynamic pace in addressing the massive problems that it faced. She urged the Government to take the necessary measures to dismantle the paramilitary groups which prevented the normal development of trade union activities in the country. In this respect, the Government could give an important lead by recognizing and protecting the legitimate right of workers to organize in trade unions, which would act as vehicles for the promotion of dialogue and understanding between employers and workers and for the development of a new culture of labour relations. Urgent action was needed to put an end to the killings, which had already cost the lives of too many people.

The Workers' member of Swaziland reminded the Committee that the Government was in serious violation of the Convention and did not appear to place value on the right to life of trade unionists or civilians in general. The case before the Committee showed a very high level of neglect of human and civil rights. Eliminations, assassinations and disappearances were the order of the day and constituted a serious degradation of human values and disrespect for justice, let alone social justice. Fundamental rights, ranging from discrimination on grounds of race and denial of the rights to strike and to free collective bargaining, were being denied. The legal system had become deeply criminalized with those engaging in illegal strikes risking imprisonment for between two and 20 years. In order to prevent strikes, the Government could classify services as essential, at will. Government interference in trade union activities and its arbitrary powers to dissolve trade unions were a gross violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The killing by police-backed death squads of so-called "disposable" persons, who included vagrants, street children and homosexuals, was a further serious contravention of civil and human rights. Social protest was classified as subversive and the response to such acts was usually the use of violence and sometimes the assassination of unarmed civilians. The right of rural workers to shelter had also been violated by the burning down of their houses. Justice and respect for human rights had been undermined with impunity for the arbitrary arrest of trade union leaders, who were brought before military courts. All the measures adopted to remedy the situation needed to guarantee the full protection of the trade union rights set out in the Convention and efforts should be made to improve respect for human and civil rights. He endorsed the call by the Workers' members for the speedy adoption of the proposed legislative changes.

The Government representative expressed his gratitude to all those who were sincerely concerned about the situation of human rights in Colombia. He accepted constructive criticisms and impartial proposals from international bodies, non-governmental organizations, trade unions and employers' associations, which wanted to cooperate with his country in the eradication of these problems. He commended the objective and impartial approach taken by these bodies to raise national and international awareness, as well as those of the human rights bodies of the UN and the ILO; he requested international cooperation, such as had happened last year when a high-level mission of the ILO visited his country in October and when an office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was opened in Colombia.

Regarding violence, his Government condemned the assassination of trade unionists, and any other people, kidnappings, torture and terrorism. He acknowledged that some agents of the State and the military were accused of committing such violations of human rights, but these were exceptions, and not the expression of any Government policy in this respect.

This grave problem of the violation of human rights and international humanitarian law in Colombia was closely related to the internal armed conflict which ravaged the country. This conflict was going on outside the conventional norms and, apart from the guerillas, an important role was played by the criminal circles such as drug traffickers and paramilitary forces. These phenomena were very real, notwithstanding the commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights, which was basic to the state of law and the democratic tradition in his country. His Government had developed a policy aimed at: the humanization of the armed conflict; the strengthening of justice; the elimination of groups of private justice; the consolidation of mechanisms promoting the application of the law; the expansion of the communication network to receive accusations and complaints; the scheme of compensation to the victims whose human rights had been violated (Act No. 288 of 1996); the policy of assistance, with the help of the International Red Cross, to those displaced by violence; the strategy of teaching and sensitizing the community concerning human rights; the creation of a special authority on human rights in the Ministry of the Interior; the opening in Colombia of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights which became operative in April 1997.

With respect to the human rights of workers, the Government had created an inter-institutional committee for the promotion and protection of the human rights of workers, composed of five representatives of the central workers' organizations, the chairman of the episcopal conference and the presidents of the two most important non-governmental organizations in Colombia (the Association of Barristers and the Colombian Commission of Jurists). This Committee might eventually invite representatives of the ILO and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to participate. It had vast competence and powers to confront the difficult tasks which it had been assigned. For example, it was charged with collecting information and studying the inquiries on the kidnappings, assassinations, tortures, threats and forced displacement of trade unionists and other workers, to recommend the necessary measures to punish such acts and prevent them from being repeated. It was responsible for presenting to the competent authorities recommendations on investigations to define penal, disciplinary and pecuniary responsibilities. It also had the function to develop an integral programme for protecting the human rights of workers and to carry out a policy to implement, monitor and supervise those rights. To avoid standards becoming a dead letter, the Decree obliged public and private bodies to supply information required for the compliance of the functions mentioned in the Decree. A copy of the Decree would be provided to the Committee.

With respect to some previous interventions which raised issues of impunity and state terrorism, he stated that in Colombia the three powers of the State were independent and that the executive authorities could not order preventive detention as it would violate the Constitution of Colombia. With respect to faceless witnesses, he stated that it was an exceptional measure due to the high level of violence imposed by narc-terrorism and that these faceless witnesses were also used to investigate serious violations against trade unions. As to the allegations concerning abuses committed by faceless witnesses in the judicial processes against the members of the Union Sindical Obrera, he stated that these processes were drawing to a close. In the case of assassination of trade union leaders Messrs. Leyton and Garzón, the ILO's intervention to put pressure on the authorities proved to be very useful in helping to speed up the investigations. With respect to section 450 of the Labour Code, its revision was studied with the ILO mission which visited his country and the text of the modifications would be transmitted in due course. With respect to the registration of trade unions, 83 organizations had been registered as of May 1997. Finally, concerning allegations of violation of freedom of association in the flower-growing sector, the speaker pointed out that there were no complaints in this respect before the supervisory bodies of the ILO.

The Committee noted the information communicated by the Government representative and the debate which followed. The Committee noted the direct contacts mission which had taken place in 1996 and observed that the Government had indicated to the Committee of Experts that it had elaborated a Bill to repeal or modify various dispositions of the Substantive Labour Code which had been criticized by various supervisory bodies. The Committee also observed that the authorities had presented the Bill to the Congress of the Republic during the legislative session. The Committee trusted that the necessary measures to eliminate the discrepancies between the national legislation and Articles 23 and 24 of the Convention would be urgently adopted. The Committee profoundly regretted the climate of violence which affected the life and physical safety of the trade unionists. The Committee expressed the firm hope that, in its next examination of the case, the Committee of Experts would be able to note substantial progress concerning the civil liberties essential for the exercise of union rights, and concerning the full application of the Convention in law and in practice.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1995, Publication: 82nd ILC session (1995)

A Government representative highlighted the mechanisms of labour participation in the elaboration of national policies, referring in particular to the creation of the National Competitiveness Council, the Sectoral Competitiveness Committees, the Tripartite Advisory Committee for Productivity, the Tripartite Follow-Up and Evaluation Committee for the "More and Better Jobs" Project, as well as the National Council for Planning.

She referred to the progress achieved in her country in connection with the social consensus, which was related to the observations made by the Committee of Experts. Last December, in Colombia, the Tripartite Productivity, Prices and Wages Social Pact was signed with the participation of the Government, employers and organized workers. In this forum for consensus and agreement, there was a discussion about common topics. Among the many agreements reached within the Social Pact, one that could be highlighted was the agreement to establish the Tripartite Committee for Trade Union Development, as an advisory body to the Government, in which employers, workers and the Government were represented. This Tripartite Committee temporarily replaced the Standing Tripartite Committee for Consensus on Labour and Wage Policies whose draft legislation is currently before the Congress of the Republic.

The Committee for trade union development analysed the articles of the national Constitution related to trade union rights and guarantees; provided recommendations concerning plans and programmes for education and training of workers and management in aspects related to trade union rights and the incorporation of new technologies; prepared the study and proposal for actions necessary to strengthen the trade union-management relationship with a view to improving the quality of work and to increasing employment; and proposed the adoption of an institutional campaign to promote a new culture for labour management relations.

In the Tripartite Committee for Trade Union Development, the national Government agreed to develop certain topics of a constitutional nature, such as the regulation of the guarantee of trade union rights for public employees. In addition, there was an agreement to set up committees to study collective bargaining in the public sector, and the regulations under article 56 of the Political Constitution related to strikes and essential public services.

As part of this fundamental agreement, the Government further agreed to implement the Dissemination and Training Programme for the Establishment of a New Culture of Cooperation in Labour Relations, which could count on the support and cooperation of the ILO at the request of the signatories.

The speaker then specifically referred to the observations made by the Committee of Experts. In connection with the suspension, for up to three years, with loss of trade union rights, of trade union leaders who have been responsible for the dissolution of their unions, she clarified that the legislation in force sets forth that only judges of the Republic are empowered to impose such sanctions. Section 380(3) of the Labour Code contains this provision. In this regard she mentioned paragraph No. 122 of the 1994 General Survey of the Committee of Experts on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining which provides that any removal or suspension of trade union leaders which is not the result of an internal decision of the trade union, a vote by members or normal judicial proceedings, seriously interferes in the exercise of their functions as trade union leaders.

She indicated that in connection with the issues related to the prohibition on more than one trade union in an enterprise, the supervision of the internal management and meetings of unions, the requirement that, in order to form a union, two-thirds of its members must be Colombian, and the requirements for eligibility for election as a trade union leader, the Government proposed to study these questions on a tripartite basis within the Standing Committee on Labour and Social Policy.

As to the right to strike, she indicated that the issue concerning the prohibition of the right to strike in public services, would be discussed by a tripartite committee set up as a result of the agreements reached in the Committee for Trade Union Development. There would be an analysis, in particular, of regulations concerning essential public services, before the Government submitted a draft law to the Congress of the Republic.

With regard to the possibility of dismissing trade union leaders who had participated in an illegal strike; the presence of the authorities at general assemblies gathered to vote on the calling of a strike, or the convening of an arbitration tribunal; the prohibition on federations and confederations from calling a strike; and the power of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike lasts for 60 calendar days, she indicated that the right to strike was a legal institution which had made considerable progress in terms of labour standards and jurisprudence in Colombia. The possible limitation or regulation of this right was based upon the collective interest of a country which was insufficiently developed and which had to protect its economic and social infrastructure for the benefit of the workers themselves, as a way of protecting their source of income, and any breakdown in the social structure which can affect the essential services of the community should be avoided. In this regard, she noted paragraph No. 151 of the previously mentioned General Survey to underscore that the right to strike could not be considered as an absolute right. The establishment of regulations and the setting of parameters and limits to the right to strike permitted a balance of opposing interests, preserving the general interest.

The Workers' members observed that the case of Colombia concerning Convention No. 87 was discussed in 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 and it was important to recall previous discussions with regard to this case as the situation in Colombia was still extremely serious. The disappearance, murder and imprisonment of trade unionists in Colombia continued unabated. They noted that, according to the Amnesty International report on Colombia, the Government had taken an important step in acknowledging the extent of the human rights violations and the responsibility of members of the security forces. The new Government had stated that human rights would be a priority issue. Nevertheless, throughout 1994 and the first half of 1995, extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and death threats carried out by members of the security forces and the paramilitary forces have continued. They referred to the annual survey by the ICFTU of violations of trade unions' rights worldwide. In the opening paragraphs of the report dealing with Colombia, it was noted that, during the first two months of the new presidency, 27 trade unionists were murdered; it was reported that at least 187 trade unionists were killed during 1994.

The Committee of Experts' report referred to a number of laws which were not in conformity with Convention No. 87, and many of these points had been outstanding for years. They observed that it was encouraging that the tripartite committee was now dealing with a number of issues contained in the Committee of Experts' report. They hoped that the tripartite committee would have before it the report of the Committee of Experts on Convention No. 87, that they would be addressing the issues contained in this year's and previous years' reports, and that they would be reporting promptly to the Government recommending legislative changes which could be made to bring Colombia into conformity with Convention No. 87.

They further observed that the ban on more than one trade union was regarded in the past by this Committee as a very important issue. From the Government's past point of view, it was thought that authorizing other trade unions would weaken the trade union representation. They observed that the Committee of Experts had stated that the Convention did not impose trade union diversity on a country. It stated that, if the members of trade unions, or individual workers, want to form trade unions, then the Government should not prevent them from so doing. They recalled that many years ago there were a number of States in the Communist bloc where single trade unions were imposed by law on the workers of a country, and something like that has persisted in Colombia. They noted that it was very difficult for a new trade union to be created due to the prior legal formalities required, and that this was a violation of the Convention.

The Workers' members then referred to the strange and threatening practice of public servants supervising management and the meetings of trade unions, as well as the presence of authorities at meetings called by trade unions to decide on arbitration or a strike. These "authorities" were in fact the security services. They observed that this sort of supervision was unhealthy, interfered with the work of trade unions and should cease. They observed that, if the Government were willing to put this to the tripartite committee, thus indicating a willingness to change these laws, no one would be more pleased than the members of this Committee.

They then referred to the obstacles for those who wished to hold trade union office: the Government preferred Colombian nationals with work experience, at least six months' experience in the work of the trade union or in the work covered by the trade union, and persons not in the process of being sued for ordinary offences at the time of their election. They considered the last point very dangerous since all that was required to disqualify someone was to sue him. Moreover, they observed that in many trade unions throughout the world people become trade union leaders who do not have a specific professional relationship with the trade union they are heading.

With regard to strikes, they noted that it was never argued that the right to strike was absolute, and there must be restrictions on the right to strike. Indeed, the Committee of Experts does not recognize an absolute right to strike: there must be restrictions, but the Experts have laid down the restrictions. The Workers' members noted that the right to strike has been defined over the years by the Committee of Experts which considers that it is a fundamental part of the right to organize and the right to collective bargaining. To the extent that there must be some restraint in some areas and under some circumstances, the right to strike is less than absolute. They observed that, in the case of Colombia, strikes are not banned generally, although they are in certain areas.

In concluding, they observed that this year the report of the Government was more helpful than it had been in the past, and that if the indications provided on the issues could mature on the basis of tripartite consultation, this would be positive.

They observed, however, that perhaps nothing would be solved in this stricken country of Colombia until it could deal with the internal strife and violence. Those problems, of course, were not going to be solved under Convention No. 87, but unless those problems were solved then Colombia would not have free trade unions or free employers' organizations.

The Employers' members emphasized that the Commission was already quite familiar with the details of the case since it had been examined on several occasions. They felt that finally the situation was no longer static and were pleased that a permanent tripartite committee had been set up which could look after problems raised by the Experts and recommend solutions.

Concerning the requirements that two-thirds of the members hold Colombian nationality in order to form a union and that they must belong to the profession in question or have exercised it for at least six months, they were led to believe that the tripartite committee had considered these requirements and that they would soon be abolished.

As for the presence of representatives of the authorities in general assemblies held to vote on arbitration or strike declarations, governed by Decree No. 2519 of 14 December 1994, they insisted that this constituted an excessive and flagrant intrusion in the internal affairs of a union, thus undermining its independence.

Concerning the ban on more than one union in the same company or establishment, the Employers' members saw no change forthcoming. They considered that for unions, as well, competition had its place. They firmly hoped that the restrictions imposed on the union movement would be withdrawn when the permanent tripartite committee resumed its work.

They recalled their position concerning the right to strike. They believed that detailed rules governing the right to strike were not part of the Convention. Among the many reasons for this, they recalled that no explicit proposal to introduce the right to strike in the Convention had been formulated during its elaboration. This question was to be addressed by another instrument yet to be prepared. Consequently, rules concerning the right to strike remained an internal affair on which the Employers' group could not commit itself, even if from their point of view an unlimited right to strike would be extreme. The permanent tripartite committee was entirely free to draw up strike legislation which corresponds to the wishes of the parties. However, the Government could not be criticized if this right was not recognized in Colombia.

In conclusion, the Employers' members considered that the situation in law and in practice seemed to be moving in the right direction, but the Government's efforts must be encouraged and strengthened so that genuine progress could be recorded in the application of the Convention, particularly due to the work of the tripartite committee.

The Workers' member of Colombia acknowledged that the Government had adopted a different approach to the question of human rights and the rights of workers. However, this attitude was insufficient and on certain occasions state agents carried out contradictory activities. In his country there were de facto and de jure violations of Convention No. 87 making the exercise of the right to organize a highly dangerous activity. Last year, more than 170 workers and union leaders were murdered with total impunity. The life and the physical integrity of trade unionists were threatened by various forces: sometimes by state agents and the paramilitary which, in many regions, acted with the complicity and help of the authorities. Special circumstances prevailed in the banana plantation of Uraba where guerrillas had assassinated, in recent years, more than a hundred workers and trade union leaders. This is not a situation unknown to the ILO. During the last ten years, the Committee on Freedom of Association has noted the numerous cases of trade unionists who have been murdered, who have disappeared and been tortured, and has requested the Colombian Government to take action to punish those who have perpetrated these crimes. The Committee on Freedom of Association, in its 265th Report expressed its disappointment on the absence of punishment of these criminals. The speaker noted an official document of the National Department of Planning of Colombia indicating that the possibility for an offence to be punished is 3 per cent, this meant that officially, impunity is 97 per cent. As to crimes against trade unionists, this impunity comes close to 100 per cent.

He also noted that the national legislation does not recognize Convention No. 87, as repeatedly pointed out by the Committee of Experts. In its latest report, the Committee set forth a long list of inconsistencies between the Colombian legislation and the Convention. For example, the authorities still have to be present at assemblies convened to vote on a strike; there was the continued prohibition of strikes in all public services, even if they were not essential, and a prohibition on federations and confederations from calling a strike. In its observations, the Committee drew attention to the fact that the national legislation - in contravention of Convention No. 87 - granted the Minister of Labour the power to end a strike when it had continued for 60 or more days. The legislation also empowered the President of the Republic to end a strike when, in his view, and in consultation with the Court of Justice, it affected the economy, also in contravention of Convention No. 87. Furthermore, strikes against the economic and social policy of the Government, as well as solidarity strikes, were forbidden.

He noted that, as in previous years, workers have complained that the Government systematically denied consultations. But today, he welcomed the measures taken pursuant to the Social Pact signed by the Government, employers and workers. In this framework, these parties worked on draft legislation, in line with the provisions of the Political Constitution which addressed the provisions of the Convention guaranteeing freedom of association and the right to strike.

The speaker then referred to the Tripartite Committee for Trade Union Development which met recently as an extension of the agreements reached in the Social Pact. There were agreements on several points relating to the Convention, such as: the Government agreed to submit a draft Law to Congress to recognize the so-called minority trade unionists and their right to strike and effectively to guarantee trade union rights to public employees. There was also an agreement to create committees to study the trade union rights of public employees, such as the right to strike, as recognized in Convention No. 87.

Lastly, he expressed the trust that progress would continue in his country to avoid situations such as the one in which a teachers' strike was declared illegal or when workers were denied social security benefits and the authorization to form assemblies. He also hoped that the policy of consensus would continue in order to encourage a true culture of tolerance, of respect for the opinion of others, for tripartism and to overcome the anti-union culture and violence so as to bring about internal peace.

Another Workers' member from Colombia was satisfied with the changes that had occurred in his country with regard to human rights and reaching agreement with the social partners. Nevertheless, it was necessary to note specific events which had taken place in the course of the last year which had not been brought to the knowledge of the supervisory bodies of the ILO, and which to some extent violated Convention No. 87. These events concerned the dismissals of workers who formed trade unions. In three important cases - in the undertakings "Tejidos El Cóndor" in Medellín, and "Alfa" and "Protelas" in Bogotá - workers who formed trade unions were dismissed from their jobs. This conduct was a violation of the Convention. In addition, strikes in the banking sector, such as in the case of the Bank of Bogotá, were declared illegal on the grounds that the strike involved workers in the public sector who were denied the right to strike. Furthermore, in the last month state university professors had been victims of police repression for staging a protest against the wage policy of the Government.

In addition, there was a concern over judgements from certain tribunals which legitimized certain violations of the Convention within the constitutional framework. He referred specifically to the judgement of the Constitutional Court which held that the authority to end a strike when it affected the economy, was constitutional. Another judgement from the Supreme Court which held that the decision concerning the right to strike which was questioned by the Committee of Experts, was justified. The speaker also was concerned that the Supreme Court of Justice had found that despite the mandate to incorporate the provisions of the Convention into the Colombian legislation, various provisions of the Labour Code which should have been repealed were still in force.

Lastly, he noted that the tripartite committee had still not been established and that the draft legislation which had been submitted to Congress contained many difficulties preventing its adoption. A transitional committee existed which had taken positive action and which functioned outside the scheme of the future committee. The transitional committee would attempt to overcome the deficiencies resulting from the Congress's failure to adopt the standard that would create the standing tripartite committee.

The Government representative from Colombia again referred to the system of reaching agreement, particularly the Tripartite Committee. In this regard, she added that the draft legislation, establishing the Standing Committee, had been submitted to Congress and had been already approved by one of the Chambers and was awaiting approval by the other Chamber.

She also reiterated that the Tripartite Committee for Trade Union Development had been created on a temporary basis and progress had been achieved on the legislation concerning the dissemination of information, the training and development of the trade union movement. Within that same Committee, subcommittees had been established to deal with, among other things, a study on the problems concerning the right to strike, and in particular, collective bargaining in the public sector. The Tripartite Committee for Trade Union Development has been operational for four months and has given rise to these previously mentioned subcommittees. She hoped that the Tripartite Standing Committee would shortly be created to reach agreements which would take into account the interests of the different parties involved in the production process and the general interest of the country. With respect to the Bank of Bogota, she stressed that no strike had been declared illegal. There also was no prohibition on declaring strikes in certain regions in the country.

She then referred to the topic of human rights violations, which had to be analysed in the context of widespread violence prevailing in her country for many years. There were many causes of that violence with victims from all sectors, among those, the trade union movement, whose members had often been a target for this violence.

She noted that the Government had achieved progress in upholding human rights and in implementing a practical policy on humanitarian law. The Government has given priority to this policy, as recognized by the Human Rights Commission. She also indicated that Protocol No. 2 was adopted by Congress and legally reviewed by the Constitutional Court. In this regard, it was important to also note that United Nations Rapporteurs and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had visited Colombia at the invitation of the Government. One of the Commissioner's representatives, in collaboration with the interested sectors, proposed measures to protect human rights. In addition, the Constitution of 1991 included the right to legal recourse on an expedited basis to redress human rights violations, which has been used by thousands of citizens including trade unionists and educators.

The speaker further highlighted the official acknowledgement of the responsibility of state agents in massacres such as the Trujillo massacre, adopting measures to compensate victims. The Human Rights Section of the Attorney General's office has been strengthened and measures have been implemented to continue the struggle against the problem of impunity.

She gave assurance that the Government was not complacent to nor an accomplice with paramilitary activity. A Committee was already working on draft proposals to reform the military penal system, and strict and far-reaching measures have been adopted to purge the national police and to improve internal control of excesses carried out in that institution.

Lastly, she stated that if the previously mentioned measures were successful, general violence would be reduced for everyone's benefit including trade unionists. The Government was working continuously to achieve peace which had been eroded by guerrillas, drug trafficking, paramilitary activities and some state agents. To achieve this, the Government counted upon the cooperation of workers and employers.

The Workers' members were pleased with the confirmation from the Colombian workers indicating that the new Government was trying to bring about change, although there was still a long way to go. They noted that the President had acknowledged that there was a very serious problem, that things have been very bad in the past, and that government elements, including the police, were responsible for this situation. The Workers' members considered this a very important first step in dealing with the difficulties of the past. They looked forward to the prospect of tripartite discussions, resulting in changes in the legislation where it was not in conformity with Convention No. 87, and noted that they would return to this case in the future, but with the belief that the number of issues involved might be far less than at present.

The Employers' members stated that they shared in condemning the generalized state of violence in Colombia which concerned those involved in union activities. They had no advice or recommendations to give to the Government, but they launched an appeal that it do everything possible and take all necessary measures in its power to combat this violence, particularly in terms of affording legal recourse. In this respect, in cases of unfair dismissal, the injured party must have recourse to the courts and be able to receive compensation. Likewise, misdemeanours must be punished and eliminating violence must figure among the main concerns of the Government.

The Committee noted with interest the presentation made by the Government representative in regard to the new cultural dialogue introduced in terms of a social pact and a series of national tripartite committees on productivity, trade union development, the enterprise labour relations, etc., and felt it to be a hopefully good sign.

It hoped that these tripartite bodies would go into the various issues mentioned by the Committee of Experts. The Committee, however, felt that the various factors mentioned by the Committee of Experts, including legislative stipulation of a single union, supervision of trade unions by public authorities and practices pre-empting free election to trade union offices, constituted a plain contravention of freedom of association and they should be removed from statutes and discontinued in practice.

In these circumstances, and in the light of the detailed discussions, the Committee urged the Government to furnish a detailed report on further measures taken to address all the issues raised by the Committee of Experts and to bring the national law and practice in line with Convention No. 87.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1993, Publication: 80th ILC session (1993)

A Government representative stated that some elements of the statements made by the Minister of Labour to this Committee last year were still valid. In fact, the presence of the authorities, in accordance with the law, at some trade union meetings, as well as their interventions with regard to their by-laws and in other cases (for example, internal conflicts) was requested by the unions themselves. The prohibition in the law of members representing the employer before his workers, or members of the top management of an enterprise from becoming members of the executive of a trade union was intended to ensure the autonomy and independence of trade unions from the employers. He recalled that in 1991 a new constitution was adopted and the task of harmonizing legislation with the constitutional standards would involve much work and require a lot of time going beyond the mandate of the current Government. The Government, however, was committed to consulting the social partners in the elaboration of the necessary labour standards. In this respect, the Government wished to hold consultations with regard to the tripartite committee provided for in the Constitution (formation, duties, etc.) and with regard to the definition of essential public services (entrusted to the Legislature by the Constitution). However, not all the information requested from the social partners had yet been received. The Government hoped the Congress would set aside time for the harmonization of the legislation with the Constitution and ILO Conventions which were part of national legislation. With regard to the concern expressed by the Committee of Experts at the serious climate of violence prevailing in the country, he reiterated the position stated by the Minister of Labour last year which excluded the public interest from the scope of the Convention and added his Government would be among the first to share this concern about the prevailing climate of violence while, at the same time, rejecting the existence of a policy that violated freedom of association and other human rights. This climate of violence was the result of innumerable conflicts between guerrilla groups and other groups linked to drug trafficking. After describing in detail some of his Government's major successes against these two plagues, he stated that the victims of assassinations were not only trade unionists but also included ministers, prosecutors, presidential candidates, directors of papers and journalists, state officials, judges and citizens. This was a general phenomenon and did not only affect trade unionists. Many trade unionists had been assassinated in the Utab region by their former comrades in arms when some guerrilla groups decided to join the peace process. Finally, he stressed the total adherence to human rights and democratic principles of his country's Constitution.

The Workers' members recalled that this Committee had discussed this case at length last year. The Committee of Experts also had noted some progress in 1992 while noting a series of discrepancies between the national legislation and the principles of freedom of association. In 1993 the Committee of Experts, basing itself on the conclusions of this Committee in 1992, had noted again that such discrepancies continued to exist. The Workers' members also indicated that the Committee on Freedom of Association had examined seven complaints against Colombia containing very serious allegations that threatened the life and security of trade unionists and the right to collective bargaining. The Committee of Experts had expressed its concern about this serious climate of violence which made the exercise of freedom of association very difficult. In view of the lack of progress, the Workers' members supported the request made by the Committee of Experts that the Government amend the provisions of the law which impeded the exercise of freedom of association and put an end to arbitrary administrative practices, and thus ensure, in practice, the enjoyment of the freedom of association. They considered that the appropriate framework to prepare the necessary changes existed, and referred to the tripartite national committee provided for in the Constitution and mentioned by the Government in 1992, and to the technical assistance of the ILO. Last year, the Government had stated that this tripartite committee would be set up and that its objectives were set out in broad terms. It appeared to the Workers' members that, since then, this tripartite Committee had not yet been set up and it was no longer a priority of the Government. This was why they asked, as had the Committee of Experts, that the law and practice be brought into conformity with the Convention and suggested in this respect that the national tripartite committee be involved in these changes. With regard to the various limitations on strikes and the right of the Minister of Labour and the President to interfere in labour conflicts, the Workers' members referred to the jurisprudence of the Committee on Freedom of Association which only permitted recourse to compulsory arbitration in the context of essential services in the strict sense of the term. This jurisprudence had been specifically confirmed by the Committee in cases concerning Colombia. They repeated their concern at the repressive measures taken in a climate of violence which, for example, labelled striking workers as terrorists, and urged the Government to take the necessary legislative and practical measures so as to ensure the full application of the Convention. They expressed the wish that the conclusions of this Committee should be drafted in the strictest of terms, in view of the doubts concerning the Government's real commitment to cooperating with the supervisory bodies of the ILO so as to ensure progress in this case and all the more so since this case had already been the subject of a special paragraph two years ago. They considered that mere declarations of intention by the Government did not suffice.

The Employers' members pointed out that it was necessary to weigh the climate of extreme violence prevailing in the country in drawing any conclusions in this case. They pointed out that last year the Committee of Experts had noted that some progress had been made but has, this year, raised ten points of varying importance that required improvement. With regard to the discrepancies involving the internal management of trade unions, the Employers' members shared the comments of the Committee of Experts which considered them to limit clearly freedom of association. With regard to the limitations on the right to strike, they reiterated their position stated in 1992. The Government had often stated its readiness to take measures regarding strikes as shown by the draft law submitted to Parliament and by the new Constitution of 1991. Nevertheless, with regard to essential services which according to the Constitution were to be defined by law, the Employers' members stated that this was, in principle, acceptable but that one would have to wait for the adoption of the said law and its application in practice before being able to assess the situation. With regard to intervention by the authorities in collective disputes by convening a compulsory arbitration tribunal, the Employers' members fully shared the Committee of Experts' position. The Committee of Experts stated, however, that when a strike was declared unlawful on the basis of a national standard which contravened the principles of freedom of association, the dismissal of trade union leaders, even if it was lawful, would be contrary to the Convention. The Employers' members stated that it was difficult to understand this position of the Committee of Experts, given that it was derived from a hypothesis based on something outside the scope of the Convention. With regard to the other points concerning the necessary amendments mentioned by the Committee of Experts, the Employers' members noted the progress already made, but pointed out that additional measures needed to be taken. Taking into account the difficulties faced by Colombia today, they were of the view that the choice was between being more patient or, on the contrary, applying more pressure. Many of the practical violations of the Convention were not attributable to the Government. That was why one had to maintain a critical dialogue with the Government taking into account the improvements already noted by the Committee of Experts and remembering that this was an extreme situation. The Employers' members hoped the Government would provide a very detailed report so as to enable them to examine the case in detail next year.

The Workers' member of New Zealand stated that he wished to associate specifically the New Zealand Workers with this case because of the seriousness of the allegations. He stated that the reference by the Committee of Experts to a "serious" situation of violence "preventing full exercise of the trade union activities", while acknowledging respect to the learned Committee and its concern to be neutral, was a serious understatement of the intimidation and horror of the reality of life for trade unionists in Colombia today. From the information in the Committee of Experts' Report, and the additional information made available by the Workers, it was clear that there was a sustained campaign of legal frustration and obstruction, as well as brutal killings and intimidation, directed at curtailing collective workers' organizations and bargaining in Colombia. He stated that he could only feel humble that workers and union officials in Colombia continued to attempt to exercise their rights in such a dangerous situation. This was a case where one felt very strongly the frustration of the Committee of Experts, reflected in its comments in paragraph 111 of its Report, regarding the inadequacy of sanctions to secure observance of Conventions - particularly where such gross violation of basic human rights were concerned.

A Workers' member of Colombia stated that in his country it was impossible to develop trade union life because social action was treated as a crime. His Government, under the pretext of combating drug trafficking, had adopted an anti-terrorist Decree and established laws on public order, but in 1992 only 6 per cent of the 618 persons detained under this law were drug traffickers and guerrillas, the rest being persons belonging to social organizations. He explained that the above-mentioned anti-terrorist statute established a procedural system which did not recognize the right to a defence and the principle of public trials, and established secret judges, public prosecutors, magistrates, witnesses, evidence and experts. Seventeen workers of the TELECOM enterprise had been jailed under this statute, and the president of the principal Colombian refinery was detained after having discussed a list of demands and having obtained a satisfactory agreement for the workers. The speaker himself had been threatened by the General Public Prosecutor with possible criminal proceedings for having obstructed justice, after a visit in order to discuss the application of the above-mentioned system to trade unionism. The anti-terrorist Decree increased penalties disproportionally, established special procedures for complicity, covered up much misconduct at the discretion of judges and converted the labour struggle into a political crime. Moreover, he indicated that different criminal provisions applied to trade union activities. Under section 290 of the Penal Code, which established the violation of the freedom to work as a crime, trade union leaders of the cement industry were ordered to pay the equivalent of $1 million and sentenced to seven months' imprisonment. The trade unionists of the banking sector were sentenced for "obstruction of work", and those of the National Archives for giving out posters that were supposedly slanderous on the basis of a request made by an employer, and for the supposed falsification of a trade union document. In addition, the arrest of the Secretary-General and President of the National Federation of Cocoa Workers was ordered, as well as the seizure of their property. He regretted that the Government continued to repeat that it would bring the legislation into conformity with the Conventions, at the same time as it accepted the tripartite committee which made unilateral decisions, as in the case of the increase of the minimum wage, and the dismissal of 40,000 public servants, among other examples. In the same manner, the Government decided to reject a draft labour statute endorsed by a million signatures that had been submitted, and justified this by stating that no rules had been established for the plebiscite initiative which was provided for under the Constitution. Finally, he referred to the high number of murdered trade unionists, and the impunity for these crimes which the Government had not acted against, and requested that the Committee record the case in a special paragraph.

Another Workers' member of Colombia regretted having to relate once again the serious circumstances which were oppressing workers with regard to freedom of association and human rights. In his country there was no guarantee for the development of trade union activity, given that many trade unions were destroyed in their formative stages and were established in secrecy. He considered it uncertain that the new law would envisage automatic legal registration of a trade union, since in practice the same legal obstacles continued as before, so that one could not speak of legislative progress. He stated that in his country this Convention was not respected and that a disturbing process was developing of penalization and criminalization of the trade union and labour struggle, with serious repercussions for workers. He gave as examples the situation in respect of air-traffic controllers, and the ECOPETROL and TELECOM firms whose workers had been repressed violently solely for the crime of having defended national sovereignty by opposing the privatization of these firms. Presently, 13 workers were detained for having exercised their rights, having been judged by "faceless judges" under accusations of terrorism, with secret witnesses and evidence and serious restrictions on the lawyers for the defence. Three other leaders of the TELECOM trade union, including its President, Eberto Lçpez, were being persecuted and obliged to live in secrecy. He indicated that the firms had been militarized and that in general the workers were experiencing a repressive and humiliating situation. He stated that the murder of trade unionists continued without the Government taking appropriate measures to combat the adversity resulting from such violence. In his opinion, the problem could not be resolved by declarations of civil war, but only through far-reaching social changes. He did not agree with and it seemed inacceptable to him that a link between the guerrillas and the trade unions was alluded to because, among other reasons, the fact that such a link had been made had resulted in numerous murders of workers. He referred to the restructuring and privatization decrees issued in December 1992 which resulted in the dismissal of more than 50,000 state workers and to the abusive use of the concept of essential public services which went so far as to include the hotel industry. He requested that the Committee take measures to prevent the destruction of the trade union movement and the sentencing of the TELECOM trade unionists to long prison terms, and requested that this case be recorded in a special paragraph because of the constant violations of rights of workers and of human rights. He gave the Office a file with information on different aspects raised in his intervention so that they would be made known to the Committee of Experts.

A Workers' member of Panama indicated his concern about the situation described by the Workers' members of Colombia and the explanations of the Government representative that, in his opinion, seemed to justify the murders of trade unionists on the basis of the fact that, in Colombia, not only trade unionists but also judges and presidential candidates were murdered. He considered that this was a serious case involving violations of human rights that should be recorded in a special paragraph of the Report of the Committee.

A Workers' member of France regretted that more and more countries were delaying bringing their legislation in conformity with the Conventions. He stated that, according to the report of the Committee of Experts, in order to form a trade union in Colombia, two-thirds of its members must be Colombians which would exclude foreign workers who would then not have the possibility to express themselves. In addition, he noted that strikes could only be declared at the level of the undertaking, in the presence of a representative of the authorities, which amounted to interference by the Government in trade union activities. He wondered what protection trade unionists had against dismissal in a country that was in the process of opening up its market within the framework of the Andean Pact.

A Workers' member of Spain stated that with regard to the case of Colombia each year the Government repeated the same arguments in this Committee, namely, that the interference by the authorities in trade union meetings was a result of requests made by the trade unions themselves and that in Colombia not only trade unionists but also journalists, government representatives and judges were murdered. He indicated his concern with regard to the so-called "faceless justice", which offended all the most basic legal principles, and to the confusion between trade unionism and terrorism which was an offence to the trade union movement.

A Workers' member of Botswana stressed that the extensive legal repression of the Colombian trade union movement was of utmost concern to African trade unionists. He noted that in Colombia during 1992 more trade unionists were killed than in any other country, and that 800 had been killed since 1987. They were subject to constant intimidation as a direct consequence of activities, whether trade union political or linked to industrial disputes, and as a consequence of their demands for economic, social and human rights for their members. He considered that it was particularly disturbing that those who had committed violations of the right of freedom of association had been able to do so with impunity. For this reason he firmly supported the proposal of the Workers' members and hoped that very severe conclusions would be adopted in this case.

A Workers' member of Germany stated that he was very concerned by the situation in Colombia, where trade unionists were the victims of a large number of arbitrary arrests, summary justice and persecution organized by paramilitary groups. He was surprised that the Employers questioned the findings of the Committee of Experts concerning the exercise of the right to strike and the dismissal of trade unionists in this country. Considering the principles proclaimed under Article 8, paragraph 2, of this Convention, he observed that if an internal law contradicted the Convention, such as the case of a dismissal that was contrary to the Convention, employers were expected to take a clear position on the basis of these principles. Finally, he invited the Committee to formulate very firm conclusions and to mention this case in a special paragraph of its report.

The Government representative mentioned the clear obligations contained in the new Constitution, the labour statute which should be promulgated by Congress, the integration of ratified Conventions into the internal legal system, the definition of essential public services and the regulation of the tripartite committee which had been established by the Constitution but which required the adoption of laws to regulate its composition and functions. In referring to that which had been stated by one of the Workers' members of Colombia in respect of the presentation to Congress of a draft labour statute, he indicated that rules governing popular initiatives provided for under the Constitution had still not been made, and that in any event the decision was to be made by Congress and not by the Government. With regard to the Terrorist Statute and its application to the TELECOM workers, he indicated that the strike concerned was a political strike and that for this reason it had been declared illegal. He explained that the Government had requested the courts to, on the one hand, cancel the legal personality of the TELECOM trade union and, on the other hand, to investigate the criminal acts which could have taken place during the strike. The first was rejected and the second, by a decision of the Public Prosecutor was divided into two separate trials, one before ordinary courts and the second before the anti-terrorist jurisdiction. He referred to the dismissals in the public sector which, he explained, were due to changes in the structure of the State and the national economy. By way of example, he stated that the sector for prior control of public spending had been eliminated, leaving 7,000 workers without employment, and the customs sector where, because of the opening up of imports, officials who had been previously responsible for issuing import permits had lost their employment. He pointed out that compensation and retirement plans had been drawn up which had covered many workers. He contested the assertion that he wished to excuse the death of trade unionists on the basis that there were other murders as well, that he had referred to the need to take into account the overall context in the country, and that he had wanted to establish a link between the guerillas and trade unionism. He indicated that the Government was interested in demilitarizing the country; evidence of this was that for the first time since 1948 the Minister of Defence and the Director of the Administrative Department for Security were not members of the military. With regard to the Andean Pact, he indicated that the promise of a free trade zone would involve problems of adjustment and that the Government would endeavour to give all necessary support to national industry and agriculture so that they could face the competition. He emphasized that his Government took its human rights obligations seriously, proof of which lay in the fact of its voluntary submission to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government representative. The Committee noted its understanding of the serious violent situation confronting the country. The Committee observed that there were still numerous and serious differences between legislation and practice and the principles confirmed by the Convention in the different points raised by the Committee of Experts for several years. The Committee took note with interest that the Government had expressed the will to come to terms with the social partners in labour matters. Nevertheless, the Committee could not fail to note that no progress had been made since this case had been examined in June 1992. The Committee expressed the firm hope that the tripartite committee responsible for drawing up draft legislation would complete its task within a short time period. The Committee continued to be deeply concerned by the situation, both in fact and in law, regarding trade union matters, and urged the Government to adopt urgently the necessary measures, with the technical assistance of the ILO if it wished, in order to reconcile its legislation with the Convention so that the Committee could take note, in the very near future, of concrete and significant progress in this matter.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1992, Publication: 79th ILC session (1992)

The Government communicated the following information:

The political Constitution prohibits the suspension and cancellation of the legal personality of trade union organisations, and it is appropriate to note that such a provision is also found in Act No. 50 of 1990.

However, the requirement that two-thirds of the members be Colombian in order to form a trade union, the alleged intervention in the internal administration of trade unions owing to the presence of public servants of the ministry at some meetings (particularly when they declare a strike), the requirement of Colombian nationality to be elected a trade union leader, the additional penalty of denying trade union office for a period up to three years where a judge has found a person responsible for the dissolution of a trade union, and the requirement that persons be of the respective occupation or profession in order to be elected as a trade union officer, are matters which were fully referred to in the letter dated 25 October 1991 directed to the Director-General of the ILO (the Government has attached a copy of its letter).

The Government had requested in a letter dated 9 October 1991 sent to the Director-General of the ILO that - considering the importance of the matter - a Convention be adopted on the right to strike. The Government regrets that, the Director-General wrote on 22 November 1991 that, for procedural reasons, he would not be able to include this significant matter on the agenda of the International Labour Conference in 1992 or 1993. The Government takes this opportunity to reiterate its request concerning the urgency of the adoption by the ILO of a Convention expressly concerning the right to strike. It is equally insisting on the fact that this right should not be derived from interpretations which, even if they are valid, are but the opinions of respectable jurists. In this sense it mentions that there are restrictions on the right to strike taking into account that the Labour Minister and the President of the Republic can invoke the arbitration tribunal to resolve the conflicts after 60 days of strike or if the strike affects the whole of the national economy.

In this respect, it is very illustrative to mention the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice which has considered Law No. 50 of 1990 to be in conformity with the Constitution and has expressed itself on the above-mentioned question in the following manner:

The trade union movement, particularly in moments of its apogee, had always wanted the right to strike to be absolute and unlimited so that collective disputes could only be resolved by its unconditional will; nevertheless, it was recognised that strikes prejudice not only the interests of workers who rely on them to fulfil their aims, but also the aims of the enterprise and, in general, those of the economic order which also deserve the same protection; it was necessary, consequently, to seek a balance between the opposed interests and this was what was understood by those who wrote the Constitution of 1936 which did not permit strikes in the public service and left it to the law to regulate the recourse to strikes in these services as was very judiciously done in the case examined here; the well-known image of the industrial institutions abandoned, useless, left indefinitely to deterioration and unproductivity, as permanent witnesses to the conflict which nobody wanted to resolve to recuperate lost goods and employment itself, led the law to preclude the general impoverishment and social damage made by the obstinate attitude of the parties, by means of alternative methods which do not touch the protection due to all and which now is specifically supported by article 55 of the Constitution according to which "the State has responsibility to promote ... other means for the peaceful solution of collective industrial disputes" as the arbitration court precisely does. (Supreme Court of Justice, Plenary, Decision of 26 September 1991.)

As regards the right to strike, article 56 of the Constitution provides:

The right to strike is guaranteed except in essential services as defined by legislation.

The law shall regulate the right to strike.

A standing committee composed of Government and employers' and workers' representatives shall promote good industrial relations, contribute to the resolution of collective labour disputes and coordinate wages policies and labour policies. Its composition and functioning shall be determined by law.

In performance of this constitutional requirement, the Government has, through the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, called a meeting of employers' and workers' representatives to conclude an agreement on the composition and functions of this standing committee and presented a Bill to the National Assembly on the subject in December 1991. When the law is enacted, the standing committee will, in conformity with the constitutional requirements and its purpose of coordinating labour policy, report on how legislation should be adapted to Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

In addition, a Government representative, the Minister of Labour and Social Security, stated that the Committee of Experts had confirmed a major improvement in the application of the Convention, although it pointed out that provisions which could be incompatible with the Convention still existed. As regards the legislative requirements concerning nationality criticised by the Committee of Experts (two-thirds of the members had to be Colombian to establish a trade union and persons had to be Colombian for election to trade union office), the new Constitution granted to foreigners the same rights and guarantees as nationals, but provided that the law could regulate these rights. The legislation therefore violates neither the Constitution nor the Convention. Foreigners could form unions, but could not control a union or be union leaders. This was based on national sovereignty, for example, to restrain foreign leaders from calling a strike in industries related to national security. Similar standards no doubt existed in most countries. The trade union central organisations of the country had not objected to the nationality requirements, any amendment to them could, however, be discussed when the tripartite labour commission, on which Congress was soon to pass regulations through a law, was set up. As for the supervision by public servants at meetings of unions of internal management (section 486 of the Labour Code), the presence of public servants was aimed at verifying fulfilment of the majority qualifications set out in trade union statutes, for example, for the calling of a strike. Trade unions frequently requested the presence of public servants when internal disputes occurred. In such cases, the role of the public servant was to collect evidence which would allow conflicts to be solved in the future. With regard to the suspension for up to three years of trade union officers who had been responsible for the dissolution of their unions (section 380(3) of the Code), Act No. 50 of 1990 removed the administrative power to suspend officers. It was now the judicial authority which verified whether a trade union leader was responsible for the dissolution or suspension of a union. Since such dissolution or suspension was ordered by the judicial authority, section 380(3) of the Code did not violate the Convention. With regard to the legislative requirements that persons belong to the trade or occupation in order to be a trade union leader, it was inherent in the nature of a trade union that its leaders belong to the same profession as its members. However, the Government did not insist on this point and was open to dialogue with the trade union confederations; it requested the ILO's technical assistance in this respect. As for the right to strike of federations and confederations, a draft law was before Congress on this subject and would be discussed. There had been developments in the country regarding the right to strike. The previous Constitution had recognised it, except in the public service. The new Constitution of 1991 only laid down restrictions on the right to strike in essential public services, to be defined by the legislature in a future law; there would be tripartite consultation on the subject. Moreover, the Government had requested the Governing Body of the ILO to study the possibility of a future Convention on the right to strike because at present it was the subject of conjured-up interpretations by the Committee of Experts or the Committee on Freedom of Association. The ILO should regulate the right to strike for the sake of judicial clarity. With regard to the power of the Minister of Labour and the President of the Republic to intervene in disputes (sections 448(3) and (4) and 450(1)(g) of the Code), this discretion resulted in the calling of a compulsory arbitration tribunal in conformity with the principles of the ILO supervisory bodies in cases where the right to strike was restricted. As for the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who had intervened or participated in an illegal strike (section 450(2) of the Code), the ILO supervisory bodies recognised the legitimacy of dismissal in cases of illegal strikes and the Convention provided that workers' organisations should respect the law of the land. Accordingly, this section did not violate the Convention.

The Workers' members referred to the report of the Committee of Experts which had drawn attention to the Government's report, the discussion of the Conference Committee in 1991, and the reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association, as well as the 1991 direct contacts mission. They further referred to the Government's written replies and the statement by the Minister of Labour and Social Security. In describing the context in which this case was being discussed, they recalled the large number of trade unionists that had been killed or had disappeared and that the situation had not yet improved.

The Government representative made a point of order to the effect that the question of public order and disappearances and deaths concerned not only trade unionists but also politicians, peasants, soldiers, teachers, children, etc., and asked the speaker to limit himself to matters related to the Convention.

The Workers' members pointed out that the Committee of Experts had referred to this Committee's discussions in 1991 which had made mention of these matters. They pointed out the reason they made reference in their introductory remarks to the disappearances and deaths of trade unionists was in order to set the difficult context of freedom of association in Colombia. They noted the written information given by the Government as well as the legislative measures noted with satisfaction by the Committee of Experts in its report. They referred, however, to the points raised by the Committee of Experts that were incompatible with this Convention. With reference to the requirement that persons be Colombian for election to trade union office, they considered it was still a violation of the Convention even if membership of unions was not prohibited by such law as was pointed out by the Government representative. They welcomed, however, the statement made by the Minister that the Government would be discussing this matter with workers and further hoped that this contradiction with the Convention would be removed soon. With respect to the suspension for up to three years, with loss of trade union rights, of trade union officers who have been responsible for the dissolution of their unions, they rejected the argument that this was not done by the Government but by the labour court because in any event it was the laws of the country that permitted such suspension and those laws are not in conformity with the Convention. They pointed out, as the Employers' members had done in the context of another case, that trade unionists were not asking for immunity from ordinary laws of the country but that this Convention protected them when they acted legally as trade unionists and the law of the country was in conformity with this Convention. Regarding the requirement that persons belong to the trade or occupation in order to be considered eligible for election to trade union office, they were not sure the Government representative had said the relevant laws had been repealed, despite the fact that most trade union officials were from the trade or occupation in question, they considered the law should not prohibit unions from appointing a full-time professional officer. Referring to the Minister's statement that the prohibition of strikes in the public service being repealed except in essential public services, they pointed out possible differences between the Committee of Experts and the Government in their understanding of what constituted essential services. Even though the Convention, as had been stated, did not specifically refer to strikes, they said the Committee of Experts had made it quite clear that strikes should be allowed when workers were acting in defence of their economic and social interests, and any attempts to restrict such rights would be in contravention of the Convention. Without getting into a general debate on the right to strike, they wished to be on record as being in favour of the Committee of Experts' long-standing interpretation of this Convention in this regard. They requested the Government representative to provide the Committee of Experts with a clear definition of what constituted essential public services to enable it to assess the extent of this exception. They stressed the views of the Committee of Experts that if strikes were restricted or prohibited, as in essential services, appropriate guarantee should be afforded such as impartial and speedy conciliation, mediation and arbitration procedures. With regard to the question of illegal strikes, they considered that the problem was not so much the strikes considered illegal under laws that were strictly in conformity with the Convention, but the laws that gave illegal strikes a very wide definition as did the Colombian laws and Constitution. They welcomed the information that was noted with interest by the Committee of Experts of the desire expressed by the Minister of Labour and Social Security to the direct contacts mission which took place in September 1991 to formally request the technical assistance of the ILO in the future process of reform of the labour legislation. They requested this Committee's conclusion to reflect their wish that as a result of this assistance the laws would soon be put in full conformity with the Convention.

The Employers' members felt that the report of the Committee of Experts on this question could be treated in three parts. The first part dealt with the points where national legislation was in conformity with the Convention. Two years ago the Conference Committee had considered devoting a special paragraph to Colombia. Today, however, a number of cases of progress could be observed. The second part pointed out the provision of the legislation that raised certain questions or where the Experts clearly considered these provisions to be contrary to the Convention. They acknowledged that the Government representative had provided some information relating to these points. As regards the requirement that two-thirds of the members be Colombian in order to establish a trade union, and the requirement that persons be Colombian for election to trade union office, while it was often the Labour Code that contained these requirements based on considerations of sovereignty, they noted that the Constitution of the country left the question open, as was often the case in other countries. They pointed out that, following the adoption of laws and directives of the European communities in this area, discrimination based on nationality did not exist in Europe. Given the Government's statement that it was ready to establish a dialogue with workers and employers on this subject, they considered its position to be flexible and that changes could be expected. As regards the suspension of trade union officers who were responsible for the dissolution of their unions, the Employers' members expressed doubts that these provisions would truly protect the trade union officers, and it seemed to them that it was up to the Government to examine this question and prepare amendments to the law in this respect. As regards the requirement that persons belong to the trade or occupation in order to be considered eligible for election to trade union office, they considered that this question was a subject for the union to determine internally and not a subject requiring legislative treatment. Given the statement by the Government representative that his Government was ready to engage in consultations on this subject as well, they felt that the tripartite committee he referred to earlier could be the appropriate body to take up these questions. With regard to the massive dismissals of workers in the public sector and the extended use of short-term contracts in the private sector, they felt there could be reasons other than that mentioned by the Committee of Experts, namely aimed at weakening the trade union movement, to justify such measures. However, they did not feel they should continue the discussion of this aspect at this stage. The third part of the report of the Committee of Experts related to the right to strike. The Government representative had stated that the Convention does not contain precise provisions in this respect and that the ILO should prepare an instrument on the rights and obligations relating to strikes and their restriction. The Employers' members noted that this year a draft resolution had suggested similar points but it had not been given a high priority. Therefore, in their view, it was necessary to limit the discussion to Convention No. 87 at this stage, as that instrument was the basis for the views of the Committee of Experts on this subject. Referring to earlier statements, they requested the Committee of Experts to re-examine their reasoning on the right to strike, as the results of such reasoning do not follow from the text of the Convention. They considered that the Convention should, as the Committee of Experts itself had indicated on other occasions, be strictly interpreted according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, in particular articles 31 and 32 which, besides the context, require the taking into account of (a) all prior agreement regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions made between the parties and (b) all prior practice followed in the application of the treaty, using which the agreement between the parties for the interpretation of the treaty was established. The report of the Committee of Experts contained a large number of points on the application of the Convention throughout the world. It was clear from this report that the situation in various countries was so different that there were no common elements to be identified in the application or prohibition of the right to strike. Using the interpretation rules of the Vienna Convention it was clear that the rules supplied by the Committee of Experts for the interpretation of this Convention were clearly incorrect. Indeed, strikes not only adversely affected employers, but third parties as well. The definition of the scope and the prohibition of strikes should not, as a result, be left to the decision of one party; only the State that had fully accepted the democratic rights and liberties of its citizens, should be responsible for the definition of the right to strike and its limitations. The Employers' members considered that this question, along with the others previously mentioned, justified that a request be made to the Committee of Experts for it to once again re-examine its conclusions. The fact that the same conclusions had been reached concerning the Committee on Freedom of Association for many years did not make either these conclusions nor the principles derived from Convention No. 87 correct. Finally, as regards the right to strike in Colombia, the Employers' members disagreed with the conclusions reached by the Committee of Experts.

The Workers' member of Colombia indicated that, during the month of June 1992, nine trade unionists were assassinated and, contrary to the statement made by the Minister of Labour, the situation of unions in Colombia is very grave in law (as indicated by the Workers' members last year referring in particular to Law No. 50 of 1990) as well as in practice. The Government interfered in union activity because of the legal obligation imposed on unions to invite officials of the Ministry of Labour to attend their general assemblies. These officials went to the extent of asking all workers to present their identity papers when a vote was being taken to call a strike. In these circumstances the trade unionists felt obliged to meet secretly at night to avoid reprisals. Even if the new legislation gave automatically legal personality to unions the Ministry has continued to give its approval in a discretionary manner. The extended use of short-term contracts (between 15 days and three months) constituted a serious impediment to freedom of association because the workers involved recognised that their contract would not be renewed if they became members of a union. The great majority of strikes were declared illegal including those that took place in services that were clearly not essential. That was the case during the strike at the Hotel Teguendama following the dismissal of 24 workers when agreement could not be reached in the context of the proceedings signed to settle the labour dispute. Recently, trade union leaders were criminally tried for sabotage and their case given to "anonymous" judges having jurisdiction over cases of terrorism, for having called a strike in a telecommunications organisation. In addition, 27 workers were threatened with dismissal and the president of the organisation concerned as well as the Minister of Labour requested the withdrawal of the legal personality of the union and the suspension for up to three years of the trade union officers. In the oil sector a union was fined millions following a strike. In many instances strikes were called to ask for the right to life of union leaders. Finally, in view of the many grave violations of freedom of association in the country the speaker requested that this case be mentioned in a special paragraph of the report.

Another Workers' member of Colombia stated that the right to form unions did not exist in Colombia in law and in practice because of the elements he would enumerate which were direct and indirect threats to freedom of association. Employment contracts were given in the form of civil or commercial contracts; contracts of very short periods, which actually numbered 1,050,000, were permitted; the right to appeal decisions concerning requests for re-employment of workers with ten years of service but who were dismissed without reason; a grace period of ten years was given to enterprises during which they did not apply the same bargaining unit to all their subsidiaries, thus weakening the results of collective bargaining which would have been beneficial to trade unions; temporary work was facilitated and the establishment of organisations providing such services was promoted which hindered unionisation; collective agreements were concluded with non-unionised workers; Law No. 60 and its implementing decrees created systems of dismissal and mass retirements based on blackmail promoting retirements with negligible compensation for employees of the State (400,000 such retirements and dismissals are expected in the coming two years); all public services, including land irrigation, the production of cement, the financial and petroleum sectors, were declared essential services with a view to making all strikes illegal; recently employers were permitted to make complaints under criminal law in the case of strikes in order to hinder the enjoyment of the right to work; penalties equivalent to minimum wages of 80 months were imposed on the petroleum workers' union for having organised two to three hours of work stoppage; strikes were considered crimes of terrorism and were submitted to "anonymous" judges during which procedures access to files was not permitted. Given the fact that laws and the practice in the country were not in conformity with the Convention and no progress has been observed and 102 trade union members and leaders were assassinated in the past year, the speaker requested that this case be mentioned in a special paragraph and that the ILO should provide technical assistance in the drafting of future labour legislation.

A Workers' member from Spain stated that the improvements in the laws mentioned by the Committee of Experts should be assessed in the context of the low level of respect given to union rights in the country. The speaker felt that provisions in the law regarding the supervision of the internal management of unions including the presence of public servants in the general assemblies were unacceptable because they indicated the prevailing lack of confidence in unions and the fact they were objects of suspicion unlike other organisations. He stated that unions were not anomalies in society but were necessary elements for progress in the country as indicated by the past 40 years of tripartism in Europe. In addition, he found the prohibition of strikes by federations and confrontations was unacceptable because the Convention gave the same rights to these organisations as it did to trade unions in general and constituted an essential part of freedom of association. Referring to the statements of the Minister of Labour on the interpretation of the right to strike made by the Committee of Experts he rejected the view that these interpretations were conjured up by them and said on the contrary that the Experts were as indispensable as judges and lawyers were to giving meaning to constitutional rights. Finally, he stated that a government that did not guarantee the right to life was not worthy of the name. He pointed out that in Colombia, as previous speakers indicated, trade unionists were assassinated and tortured constituting grave violations of the Convention.

A Workers' member of Greece denied that trade union rights of foreigners were restricted in all countries for reasons of threats to the security of these countries and cited the cases of Belgium and Germany where immigrant workers were part of the trade union leadership. The question of internal security in the context of a strike arose only with respect to certain particular sectors. He urged that the legislation be put in conformity with the Convention and that the Government should indicate its intentions in this regard and request the technical assistance of the ILO.

A Workers' member of France stated that the interventions previously made by the Colombian trade unionists demonstrated, if it was still necessary to do so, the extent of the difficulties with which the trade union movement was presently confronted in Colombia. He noted the limitations on trade unionism in this country: the problem of foreign workers, raised by the Workers' member of Greece; that of part-time workers, the number of which was constantly increasing; and the interference of political power in the trade union movement, notably through the presence of authorities in general meetings held to take strike votes. In respect of the request of the Employers' spokesman that the ILO adopt a Convention concerning the right to strike, he stated that this was not the ideal time to discuss the report and the views of the Committee of Experts concerning the scope of freedom of association. The right to freely organise their activities and to formulate their programme of action, provided for in Article 3 of the Convention, was a prerogative of trade union organisations, and for this reason since 1919 one had refrained from curbing or limiting its application by means of a Convention. The strict framing of the right to strike must be avoided and the provisions of the Convention respected. The Workers' member of France emphasised that the best way to assist the Government to develop legislation was to formulate firm requirements in the conclusions of this debate.

A Government member of Germany referred to the comments of the Committee of Experts on this case, and the written statement made by the Government and said that there were no means to verify many of the events described and, although these matters were quite shocking, they did not constitute the matters upon which it was necessary for the Committee to pass judgement. He noted that considerable progress had been made, although there remained significant discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. However, he emphasised that this view did not apply to everything that had been said, nor to all the findings of the Committee of Experts concerning restrictions placed on the right to strike in the public service.

Another Workers' member of Colombia stated that in his country there was neither justice, democracy or free trade unionism, and that he was required to speak before the Committee, because to remain silent would be to betray the confidence of those who had sent him to the Committee to defend their rights. In his country, there existed a so-called anonymous justice, which permitted the judging of someone without his knowing who was judging, who was accusing or of what one was accused. A number of trade union leaders of the national telecommunications company who had engaged in a strike when it wanted to privatise the enterprise, were being judged today by anonymous judges. This year, at the time of the 500th anniversary of the discovery of America, indigenous persons had been murdered because they were looking for a bit of land where they could work, land which always had belonged to them. He considered that the Government of Colombia deserved to have the case of this country included in a special paragraph.

A Workers' member of Uruguay referred to the consequences of the policy of indiscriminate rationalisation and privatisation of public enterprises. He stated that the right to strike was an inalienable right, the tool which workers had in order to defend themselves, and for this reason restrictions on this right meant that there would be a reduction of its most important means of defence. With reference to that which had been stated by the Government representative to the effect that it would be appropriate to adopt an international labour standard on the right to strike, he asked whether what the Government representative wanted was to impose restrictions, and indicated that the Committee on Freedom of Association has stated that limitations on the right to strike could only be justified in cases in which strikes ceased to be peaceful. He recalled that in Colombia trade union leaders had been murdered, strikes were prohibited, there was no freedom of association, and Convention No. 87 was being contravened; he therefore asked the Committee to include the case of Colombia in a special paragraph.

The Government representative stated that his country guaranteed freedom of association to foreigners. but it was another matter to permit a group of foreigners to be able to dominate a trade union and to declare a strike. Regarding the clear constitutional definition in respect of the right to strike, he indicated that the Constitution guaranteed this right except when essential services were involved, but that such services still had not been determined: this was a task for Congress. He considered that the situation regarding the right to strike was different according to the country in question, and according to its development. The reference which he had made to the possibility of adopting an instrument of this nature did not mean that his Government wished to limit the right to strike. This right had been found to be limited, even by the Committee of Experts; for the Committee, the freedom of association which had been established did not allow strikes in essential public services or in the public administration. The purpose of his proposal that an international instrument be adopted on the right to strike was to set out the limits for this right. In reference to the intervention of the Workers' member of Spain to the effect that his Government did not respect the right to life, he emphasised that his Government did respect the right to life, not only as required in international instruments on human rights, but also under the national Constitution, and on behalf of his Government he fervently rejected this allegation. He referred to the difficult situation in his country, an excellent place for drug traffickers, but rejected the insinuation to the effect that the murder of a number of indigenous persons was owing to inaction on the part of the Government. His Government was struggling against such circumstances, and it seemed that other governments, for example Spain and the United Kingdom, were experiencing similar circumstances in respect of terrorist activities, without one being able to suggest that they did not respect the right to life.

The Workers' member of Colombia stated that the Government had not responded to the question which had been raised in respect of the situation of the trade union movement, and reiterated his question as to what were the essential public services in Colombia, as the absence of definition in the legislation left the determination of such services to the free will of the Government.

A Workers' member of Ecuador stated that he shared the different opinions expressed in the Committee on the report of the Committee of Experts, which had recognised that Colombia had made some progress in implementing legislation. Nevertheless, he observed that in their interventions the Workers' members had stressed the discrepancy between such provisions and practice. He referred to the intervention of public servants at trade union meetings, which according to the Government representative was intended to guarantee the democracy of the decisions which trade unions were adopting. In his opinion, this involved a clear violation of the Convention. He considered that the Government had an interest in eliminating such participation in trade union meetings, and that such participation might lead to suspicion in the cases of murders of trade union leaders, in that there could be established a cause and effect relationship between these matters. The speaker observed that presently the rights of workers guaranteed under ILO Conventions appeared to be becoming fewer. In this context, he clarified that trade union freedom which was not accompanied by the right to strike as an indispensable complement was a non-existent freedom of association.

A Workers' member of Chile stated that Chilean trade unionists had extensive experience in respect of restrictive laws on the trade union movement. After having heard Colombian trade unionists and those exercising public power in that country, he considered that he was confronted with a reality that was characteristic of Latin America. The restrictive laws which existed in Colombia existed in Chile and were characteristic of a dictatorship. He believed that Colombia was a country that wished to improve the institution of democracy, but which could not do so without the workers. Free workers not only exercised the right to strike but also constructed peace together with employers and politicians. He wished that the Government representative would say whether the authorities really had the will to respect the Convention. He hoped that in 1993 they would not speak more about murders, and that Government representatives would not need to give explanations. He also hoped that in the coming year the Government would show more respect for the rights of workers and human rights, so that workers could play an appropriate role in the development of their country.

A Workers' member of Greece stated that there must have been a misunderstanding, because no one had confused political power and judicial power. The latter, in all democratic countries, involved only the interpretation and the application of laws. The Government was requested to change national legislation in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention. In addition, he asked the Government whether it intended to request technical assistance from the ILO for this purpose.

The Workers' member of Spain referred to the intervention of the Government representative. He indicated that the essential difference between what was occurring in Spain and Colombia was that in Spain it was known who was committing the murders and acts of terrorism. The State was taking responsibility for the elimination of such murders and had succeeded in reducing their number. He requested the Government representative to respond to two questions: when was the control which the administration exercised over the trade union movement by the presence of a public servant at trade union meeting going to disappear, and when was it going to recognise the confederations and the right to hold strikes?

The Workers' members stated that the Colombian Workers members' had provided useful information in describing the types of strikes that were banned as "essential services", such as those in the hotel and oil industries. They noted that such an interpretation of "essential services" was not a correct application of the principles of the Convention. They agreed that there was a generally accepted distinction between government and judiciary in such countries: the Government established laws while the judiciary applied them, but he emphasised that if the law was wrong the Government could not use the judiciary and its independence as an excuse for lack of action. In their view, the law was wrong and needed to be changed. The Government referred to acts of terrorism which had taken place in Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States which infringed upon the right to life. The Workers' members stated that if hundreds of trade unionists disappeared and even worse were killed every year in those countries, there could be no doubt that these facts would be of concern to this Committee and the subject of considerable discussion. There were death squads operating in Colombia that were killing trade unionists, and this fact could not be ignored. They declared that they did not believe that it would be helpful to reopen the debate on Convention No. 87 and the right to strike. They noted that a resolution in respect of this issue had been placed on the agenda of the Resolutions Committee, and had been given low priority. In their view this was an indication that both Workers' members and many governments at this Conference felt that the more detailed examination of these issues would not be helpful and certainly the work of the present Committee might become chaotic during the course of an examination which could take many years. Governments who had been strictly following interpretations of the Committee of Experts on the right to strike would begin to doubt the correctness of their application of the Convention if the principle became the subject of lengthy examination. The Committee of Experts' stated view on the issue had been clear for decades and had not been challenged except in the last year or two by the Employers' group and now the Government of Colombia. The Workers' members suggested that the Government be asked whether it would be prepared to accept technical assistance from the ILO. Although they had seen the first signs of movement towards conformity with the Convention, they stated that they wished the conclusions of the Committee to be strong enough to establish that the Government still has a considerable way to go before they were fully in conformity with the Convention.

The Employers' members stated that, despite the many problems faced by its country, the Government had managed to take positive steps in respect of the Convention, which had caused the Committee of Experts to note this case as where progress had been made. In reference to the distinction made between law and interpretation of the law, they noted that where the law was unclear or contained loopholes, the interpretation of the law became independent as it stepped in to clarify and apply the law. This was also true of Convention No. 87, in respect of which a body of case law had developed which was extremely favourable to the Workers' case in the present situation, although in their view the content of this case-law could not be derived from the Convention. However, as the Committee of Experts had made lengthy statements about the right to strike and restrictions on this right, they must be addressed by this Committee.

The Committee took due note of the written and oral information provided by the Government. It also took note of the progress being made in conformity with the Convention, and it felt bound to recall that there still were different points raised by the Committee of Experts where the law was in conflict with the Convention. The Committee noted, however, that the Government was settting up a tripartite commission to prepare a draft Bill which the Government intended to bring before Parliament. It also took note of the Government's willingness to ask for technical assistance from the ILO. The Committee remained concerned about the situation - not only the legal one - existing in the country. It therefore urged the Government to take all necessary steps to bring the legislation into complete conformity with the Convention at its earliest convenience in order that the Committee could make a full assessment of the same at its next session.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1991, Publication: 78th ILC session (1991)

A Government representative of Colombia, Minister of Labour and Social Security, stressed the improvements with regard to Convention No. 87 brought about by Act No. 50 as a result of which steps had been able to be taken to improve the situation regarding the legal personality of trade unions. It was now a matter for the labour courts to resolve any disputes or cases in this connection. The constituent Assembly had approved the registration of a number of unions. They now had the right to engage in collective bargaining and conclude collective agreements; these unions represented about a third of the workers. It was also possible to form mixed trade unions.

He raised certain expressions which were not exactly taken up in the Act, due to the short time that had been available to examine in depth the Committee of Experts' comments. The Experts stated that the election of trade union officers had to be submitted for approval by the administrative authorities and it deemed this to be a breach of Article 3 of the Convention using references to Resolutions dating from 1952, 1972 and 1979. He had the text of the 1958 Resolution with him and pointed out that it did not make any reference at all to the approval of the election of trade union officers. There was a reference to giving information about elected officials, but there was no wording as stated in the report of the Committee of Experts. Likewise, according to the Experts, new section 380(3) of the Labour Code provided for suspension for up to three years, with loss of trade union rights, of trade union officers who were responsible for the dissolution of their unions. However, he pointed out that this was not administrative suspension, but a faculty available to the Government when standards were violated. It was then possible to have recourse to the labour courts which would decide the question. He stated that the provision cited by the Experts as prohibiting trade unions from taking part in political matters had been repealed in 1990. He stressed that Colombia respected freedom of association and trade union officials had always been free to engage in politics; many were in fact members of Congress. As for the Experts' mention of new section 450 of the Labour Code, as amended in 1990, he noted that before suspension or dissolution of the legal personality of a trade union following a strike or unlawful work stoppage could take place, the matter required a decision by the labour courts. Thus new section 450(3) of the Code provides for the withdrawal or suspension of legal personality, but not by the administrative authority.

Referring to the right to strike, he was of the opinion that the constitutional procedures and the terms of the Standing Orders of the Conference permitted discussion of this question in some appropriate way within the ILO. The Committee of Experts stated that, in Colombia, strikes were prohibited not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in a wide range of public services which were not necessarily essential. It was true thet the Constitution prohibited strikes in public services, but this was because his Government believed that all public services were essential. His Government had proposed legislation in the Constituent Assembly which it considered to be in conformity with Convention No. 87. This was provided for in the national Constitution because when the authorities had to take action within their competence, they bore in mind the fact that strikes had to be related to economic matters of direct concern to workers. Mention had been made of the power vested in the Minister of Labour to permit the dismissal of all the workers in an undertaking in certain circumstances, one of which was if the strike had not been resolved by arbitration. He stated that the law of the majority should prevail in the case of a trade union. His Government also considered it important to maintain the 1968 legislation providing that there could be restrictions on a strike which affected the interests of the national economy; but even here the agreement of the Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court had to be obtained.

Referring to the Committee of Experts' comment on the prohibition of strikes, subject to administrative penalties, when a state of emergency had been declared, he stressed that it was only in such cases that such sanctions could be imposed; that is, in very special circumstances. In Colombia, there had been very serious difficulties and work stoppages - not actual strikes - which had restricted the right to work of those who did not want to take part in the stoppages designed, for example, to paralyse transport or interrupt communications. In these special cases the Government had taken action, as it was permitted under the Constitution, and the situation in Colombia necessitating such action was well known.

As regards action against trade union officers who had intervened or participated in an illegal strike, and the prohibition of work stoppages which can have subversive ends, the speaker pointed out that Article 8 of the Convention provided that in exercising the rights under the Convention, workers and employers and their respective organisations, like other persons or collectivities, had to respect the law of the land. For these reasons, and again repeating that there were imprecisions in the Experts' report, the Government representative expressed his concern about the need for a clearer definition of the right to strike and all its implications.

Referring to Convention No. 98, he stated that the Act No. 50 permitted the formation of mixed trade unions in which public service employees and private employees could both be members. There had been a great deal of legislative reform in connection with the Labour Code which had been in force for over 40 years and his Government was pressing on with reforms in order to bring the legislation into line with the Conventions in question. The Constituent Assembly, was currently meeting with a view to ensuring that new powers were vested in Congress in this connection; and new legislation was being drafted with a view to accomplishing all these reforms.

The Workers' members of the United Kingdom, while thanking the Government representative for his very detailed report, believed that he Workers, disagreed with much of what he had said. The Committee of Experts had quite rightly set out the legal formulations necessary to bring the Colombian legislation into conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. While they had to record some progress at the legislative level as a result of the adoption of Act No. 50, the present Committee and the Committee of Experts were also concerned with practice. As was noted last year, behind this case were possibly the most horrifying facts that would emerge in discussions in the present Committee: they could read out a list of prominent trade union leaders who had been killed, tortured, raped or who had disappeared, and since last year the situation had worsened. To read out the names provided by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and Amnesty International as well as other human rights groups, would do disservice to the many hundreds of victims whose names were unknown. The Government would say, as it did last year, that this violence against trade unionists was the work of drug dealers and criminals. This was, to some extent, true. But considerable evidence existed showing that members of the security forces had acquiesced, and had even been directly involved in some of these criminal acts. The attitude of the Government towards trade unions, with its restriction of trade union rights and detention without trial for long periods, created an atmosphere in which criminals and drug dealers had to feel that they were almost acting as government agents. Trade unionists themselves, in trying to establish recognition of basic trade union rights, were being treated as criminals in Colombia. Unionists throughout the world tried desperately to promote their causes peacefully; if the Government of Colombia was to harness the peaceful cooperation of unions, instead of repressing them, it might have better success in dealing with the criminal elements which pervaded the whole of Colombian society. Trade unionists discovered that, although massive military forces were available to break up local strikes, the same forces were mysteriously absent when union headquarters were being attacked and unionists being killed.

The Employers' members recalled that the Committee of Experts was of the view that the new legislation had led to some progress for both Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Since the various points had been raised and discussed for a number of years, any change in a positive direction was to be welcomed. But there was still a lengthy list of continuing deficiencies which required discussion. Of the four points raised under Convention No. 87, the first two concerned the setting up and internal functioning of the trade unions. The provisions mentioned were quite clearly contrary to the Convention and were quite unnecessary and should be changed. The Government representative, referring to a large number of points, had repeatedly stated that the situation had changed, but the Employers were not clear whether all the points criticised by the Experts had been rectified. Considerable clarification was required here and they requested an exact report on where changes had taken place and what further changes were envisaged. They considered that points 3 and 4 raised under Convention No. 87 were less clear. It was a question of the often difficult distinction between trade unions and political organisations. There was no doubt that there could be no ban on political activity or political meetings, but one could distinguish between political and other organisations and it was also clear that truly political bodies were not covered by the Convention. As regarded the possibility of restricting strikes, the Employers indicated as they had in 1989 that they did not share the view of the Committee of Experts, namely that strikes could be restricted or prohibited only in public services in the strict sense of the term. Nevertheless they stated that there had to be a limit set as regarded the prohibition of strikes, which should not be too restrictive, and the situation in Colombia had to be changed on this point as well.

As for Convention No. 98, the Committee of Experts is satisfied because fines had been further increased. However, the Employers repeated that it was not necessary to specify amounts because Article 1 and 2 of the Convention referred to "adequate" protection and Article 4 recognised that measures had to be appropriate to national conditions. One further point remained outstanding, that of civil servants not being able to bargain collectively. This restriction was so extensive that it also applied to workers in commercial and industrial enterprises just because they were State-owned. The Employers believed that such workers should not be deprived of the right to bargain collectively. Since it appeared that the Government representative had stated that certain restrictions no longer existed, the Employers' members felt that his statement should be included in a detailed report so that the facts could be verified.

As there were still considerable differences, particularly concerning Convention No. 87, there was a need for rapid change and they considered that the present Committee should insist on a change in the near future in both the legislation and practice.

A Workers' member of Colombia thanked the ILO and all those who had expressed their concern and distress at the terrible situation faced by workers in Colombia. Referring to the statement made by the Government representative, he maintained that there was improper interference by the State in every aspect of the functioning of trade unions and not only in the Confederation to which he belonged. A virtual war was being waged against the trade union movement in Colombia and this arose in connection with the most recent legislation mentioned by the Committee of Experts in its report. He stated that the trade union movement had, for a long time, been making requests and calling for democratic reform of the labour legislation, but had constantly met resistance from the Government and employers. With reference to the Government representative's statement that reforms were being carried out in collaboration with the workers and employers, he observed that although the workers had hoped for proper proposals, the Government had produced reactionary provisions that were now embodied in Act No. 50 of 1990. In his opinion, the Government was trying to convince world public opinion that the amendments favoured workers whereas the legislation had really been brought into line with the requirements of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. There had been some progress compared to 1989 and 1990 but he noted that Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 had been law in Colombia since 1976 and, despite all the legislation passed over the last fifteen years, they were still not properly applied. The Government representative had stated that strikes were not prohibited, but rather work stoppages. However, the four trade union confederations had organised a strike on 14 November 1990 aimed exclusively at defending workers' interests and this peaceful action had resulted in government measures including imprisonment for three years of those who called the strike, confiscation of trade union funds and the censorship of union radio and television. The military forces had been deployed as an intimidation measure and the Government had orchestrated a disinformation campaign alleging that the stoppage had been a failure. In concluding, he considered that the work of the Committee of Experts in this case had to be continued and suggested that a direct contacts mission be sent once again to the country with a view to establishing clearly how Act no. 50 of 1990 was going to be applied in practice.

Another Workers' member of Colombia, having listened to the Government representative's statement, informed the Committee that the situation of Colombian workers could not be worse. The new labour legislation not only breached the fundamental principles of the ILO, but was aimed at destroying the Colombian trade union movement. He based this remark on the following: rather than providing for the "elimination" of obstacles to the formation of unions, the Act allowed precarious employment contracts so that it was impossible for workers to join a union because of their temporary employment situation. Workers knew that if they joined a union, they ran the risk that their contracts would not be renewed. With this institutionalisation of temporary employment (the law had previously prohibited contracts of less than one year) it was impossible in practice for workers to belong to unions and to conclude collective agreements. The new Act also introduced changes concerning strike formalities and he pointed out that it was now very difficult for workers to vote in favour of a strike because the decision had to be taken at an enterprise-level meeting which could be attended by workers who were not members of the union. He added that the Government was propagating the fallacious idea that it did not prohibit strikes, only stoppages. but the stoppage of 14 November 1990, already referred, to was precisely a strike to protest against the introduction of this new Act on which the workers had not at all been consulted. They had been allowed to attend meetings of the committees discussing the draft provisions but had not been able to express their views, even though other parties had been heard. The stoppage itself had not been subversive and the confederations involved had publicly appealed to guerilla groups not to intervene in any way; nevertheless, it was declared illegal before it started and disciplinary action was taken throughout Colombia. Another deterioration introduced by the new Act was the lowering of the minimum age for admission to employment from 14 to 12 years, which could not be called progress. He called for an ILO mission to visit Colombia to assess the real situation. Lastly, he referred to a report of the Committee on Freedom of Association which called on the authorities to take steps to ensure the reinstatement of a group of workers who had been unjustifiably dismissed in the textiles sector. To date there had been no information from the Government about any reinstatements and this showed that, while the Government said one thing in order to impress public opinion, what was actually occurring in the country was quite different.

Another Workers' member of Colombia pointed out that this decade had been one of the most difficult in the history of Colombian workers. The Government representative had not referred correctly to the facts or to the policies of structural adjustment which were, in reality, not decided in Colombia, but by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Washington. He believed that this neo-liberalism imposed by a cruel developmental policy would not hesitate in destroying the democratic basis of the union movement in the interests of implementing a new economic order in Latin America. It was no accident that today's leaders in Latin America had received instructions on this new economic order which was detrimental to social justice. In Colombia, these structural and economic policies were affecting the poorest and most marginalised sectors of the population. The new Act merely complied with these measures; the future was therefore bleak. He stressed that efforts had to be continued to combat the repression of the interests of Colombian workers, which were the interests of Latin American, Third World and all workers in general.

The Government representative of Colombia, referring to the statements made by members of the Colombian trade union confederations, supported their proposal that an ILO mission go to Colombia very shortly to study on the spot the various issues raised here. In that way his Government could help the ILO learn more about the situation in the country. Referring to the Workers' members statement, he firstly rejected most strongly the remark that the agents of terrorism and drug traffickers were acting virtually as government agents. Their acts had to be condemned, and none of them were in any way attributable to or associated with the Government. In carrying out its mandate as elected representatives of the people, his Government had done everything possible to combat these subversive acts. Secondly, he rejected the insinuation that a foreign power should interfere in the internal affairs of a country. There had been interventions which were already forgotten in Latin America. Relations with the United States were excellent. He added that he had not broached the problem of the long list of trade unionists who had been subject to attack in the country because that was not covered by the report of the Committee of Experts. He acknowledged, to his distress, that it was not only trade unionists who were the victims but also presidential candidates, judges, magistrates, police officers, soldiers, entrepreneurs and innocent citizens. All Colombians were concerned over the painful situation in the country and unionists knew, better than anyone else, that it was necessary to put a stop to these subversive attacks. Referring to the comments of the Employers' members, the Government representative stated that he had taken careful note and that the Government would be taking the necessary steps to remedy the situation. He repeated for clarity that the new Act had abolished suspension by administrative authority of the legal personality of trade unions; everything connected with withdrawal or suspension of legal personality was now a matter for the courts. In addition, he repeated that section 450 of the new Act had been misquoted. Lastly, he recalled his wish that the ILO carefully study all aspects of the right to strike and he repeated that a mission should visit the country to note the progress achieved, progress which had been recognised to some extent by the trade union leaders who had spoken earlier.

The Workers' members stated that to arrive at a better situation, two factors were needed: firstly legislation in full conformity with the principles and obligations of the Conventions, and secondly the practical application of their principles and obligations. On the first point the report of the Committee of Experts was clear. Although it noted certain progress with satisfaction, it recalled a series of major questions which had not been resolved. As for the practical application the Committee had heard the interventions of the Workers' members. It was also known that the Committee on Freedom of Association was seized of several complaints and had called on the Government to take measures to end the violence affecting a great number of trade unionists and to strengthen the protection of workers and trade union leaders against acts of anti-union discrimination. On all these points, the statement of the Government representative was regrettable and worrying. Regrettable in form, because although there had been special paragraphs on this case for two consecutive years, there was no written reply to the comments made and only an oral statement which could not be examined in depth. Worrying in content, because the Government was well aware of the views of the Committee of Experts and the present Committee, but only gave assurances of one day arriving at a better situation. They believed that the present Committee should insist on the Government taking measures not only to reply to the questions raised, but to change the legislation to bring it into full conformity with the Conventions. The Workers' members wanted to continue dialogue but the maximum pressure had to be brought to bear for this. They had initially considered proposing that this case be mentioned in the present Committee's report as one of continued failure to implement, but the Experts had noted some progress. They stressed that they would have proposed for the third time a special paragraph for Colombia, but in view of the fact that the Government had asked for a direct contacts mission and in the hope that this mission would take place shortly they would not do so.

The Employers' members noted from the discussion that the situation in Colombia was worrying and had gone beyond the scope of the Conventions. Nevertheless, as concerned the questions to be dealt with here, some things were very clear and had to be changed. They repeated that every necessary step should be taken towards this. As for the suggestion of a direct contacts mission, they recalled that such a mission had taken place in 1988. This was not always the way to settle everything, but they assumed that goodwill was present. Last year, the present Committee's conclusions reflected the Government's request for technical assistance from the ILO. This could be done once again, but they expressed the wish that the mission take place as soon as possible and that corresponding results be achieved.

The Employers' member of Algeria added his deep concern over the situation which was seriously deteriorating in Colombia as regarded respect for the most fundamental standards of the ILO, namely Conventions Nos. 87, 98 and those linked to non-discrimination. The case being discussed here was not new to the present Committee's members and he wished to stress that both workers' and employers' organisations would be able to enjoy the democratic rights flowing from Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. He had seen in his own country the ease with which the struggle for democratic rights could be transformed by the powers that be into a "pseudo-subversive" struggle. He agreed with the Workers' members that, morally, the Committee had to maintain maximum pressure despite the progress noted in Colombia. The direct contacts mission should take place, but he did not wish to see the case being discussed over the years to come. The situation was serious and there had to be respect for the responsibilities and principles accepted by virtue of the Constitution of the ILO.

The Committee noted the information supplied by the Government as well as the discussion that had taken place and submitted them to the Committee of Experts. It took note of the request addressed to the ILO regarding the sending of a direct contacts mission and hoped that it would take place very shortly. The Committee noted with interest certain legislative improvements which had taken place in the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 since last year. However, in view of the deep concern which it had expressed for a number of years in connection with the numerous and serious deficiencies that continued to exist in the law and in practice as regarded the application of the Conventions, the Committee expressed the firm hope that the Government would be in a position to communicate to the supervisory bodies of the ILO as rapidly as possible specific information on the measures taken or envisaged so as to bring the legislation and practice into full conformity with the requirements of these Conventions. In view of the seriousness of the trade union situation which was confirmed by the Committee on Freedom of Association when it examined pending cases, the Committee insisted that the Government indicate that real and substantial progress had been made in its next report.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1990, Publication: 77th ILC session (1990)

A Government representative stated that his Government, in order to fulfil its obligations with regard to the ILO, was undertaking a total reform of labour legislation, since the present Labour Code had been in force since 1948. He recalled that specialists had been entrusted with and had completed the reform of labour institutions dealing with both individual rights and collective rights in the Labour Code. In relation to the comments of the Committee of Experts, he pointed out that last year the Government, with the support of the Ministry staff, Colombian experts and the ILO through PREALC, had brought about a reform in the structure of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. In particular, there was going to be a reorganisation of the Trade Union Register because there had been many complaints, a fact which had been noted in the Committee of Experts' report relating to registration of trade unions and their authorisation. The figures listed in the report was no longer up to date because recently over 200 unions had been registered. However, the basic problem was related to the legal personality of trade unions. The legal personality of more than 6,000 organisations had been recognised, but more than 4,000 were inactive according to the latest trade union census. In addition, in relation to legal personality he stated that it could not be suspended except by using a dearly set out procedure. As for the right to collective bargaining, he noted the large number of collective agreements concluded in recent years and the reduction in the number of strikes, which showed that there was free negotiation of collective agreements between the parties concerned and with the co-ordination and participation of the Ministry when necessary. Once the new structure of the Ministry of Labour was operational with a department that would replace the earlier Trade Union Registry, this would enable compliance with Acts Nos. 26 and 27, which implemented the provisions of this and other ratified Conventions.

A Workers' member of the United Kingdom recalled that, following the lengthy discussion last year concerning Colombia's application of this Convention, this Committee had mentioned this case in a special paragraph. He also recalled that this Committee had considered the technical questions raised by the Committee of Experts and had discussed in depth with the Government representative the cases on Colombia which had been considered by the Committee of Freedom of Association. In its conclusions the present Committee had requested the Government to "take all the necessary measures to bring the law and practice fully into line with the requirements of the Convention, inter alia, in attempting to reintroduce a situation propitious to the full exercise of civil liberties and accordingly the freedom of association and to guarantee the physical safety of trade unionists." The Committee concluded that it hoped that the Government "would be able to report next year on substantial progress achieved in this field." The speaker expressed his disappointment that the Government appeared to have failed to deal with this. Nothing that had been said led him to believe that there had been any material change in the situation regarding the protection of trade unionists in Colombia. Last year he had referred to information provided by Amnesty International concerning trade unionists and he could mention up-to-date information with regard to the death threats and killings of trade unionists. The Government representative had given statistics about the reduction in the number of strikes over the past few years. Although such statistics were interesting, the speaker was more interested in knowing the number of trade unionists who had been killed or who had disappeared over the past five years, in order to see whether there was any material reduction. Apparently, this was not the case. Scores of union leaders, labour lawyers and trade union legal advisers had received death threats at the hands of paramilitary death squads. Many of those who had persisted in their legitimate trade union activities had been killed or had disappeared, apparently after detention by the security forces or civilians working with them in the guise of the so-called "death squads". On repeated occasions, senior officers of the armed forces and civilian authorities had publicly affirmed that the trade union movement had been infiltrated by left-wing subversive movements; this was the excuses they used. They had accused individual union leaders and activists of direct links with guerilla movements. As a result of those unproven accusations, in several cases known to the speaker such accusations were followed by killings carried out in the name of paramilitary death squads comprised of persons identified with the security forces. The banana-growing region had been particularly affected by a systematic campaign of intimidation of union members that included arbitrary arrests, disappearances and politically motivated killings. Again, paramilitary forces or even gunmen hired by local landowners had repeatedly carried out most of the killings in this region. However, accordingly to available evidence, the army and the police appeared to be directly responsible for some of the extra-judicial executions. The Government had continued to affirm its commitment to safeguard freedom of human rights. While these statements were welcome, what was really needed was action. Any measures designed to safeguard the basic human rights were welcome but speaking from the workers' point of view, which indeed might also be the view of this Committee, the speaker felt that more immediate and effective measures were required in order to halt human rights violations. He urged the Colombian authorities to carry out thorough and impartial investigations and to ensure that those responsible for human rights violations were brought to justice. In most instance, the civil and judicial authorities had initiated the proceedings required by the law following reports of extra-judicial executions and disappearances. But the investigations had only exceptionally resulted in prosecutions and convictions. Despite the efforts of the Prosecutor General's and the civil judiciary to identify and prosecute those responsible for human rights violations, the extra-judicial executions of trade unionists, torture and disappearances continued to be committed with virtual impunity. In the majority of cases where the investigations had resulted in the identification of armed forces personnel implicated in politically motivated abuses, jurisdiction had been passed to the military courts. These courts had failed to conduct impartial proceedings or to hold the police and the military personnel criminally liable for their violent crimes against the trade unionists. The continued failure of the judicial authorities to prosecute and convict members of the armed forces responsible for these extra-judicial executions, torture and disappearances of trade unionists considerably undermined confidence in the ability of the Government to handle the serious crisis that now existed in Colombia for human rights and freedom of association. The speaker expressed the hope that the comments made during this debate would be drawn to the attention of the Committee of Experts. Likewise, he hoped that the Government representatives of Colombia would draw the attention of the new President and the new Congress, which would be taking office in July 1990, to everything which had been said in this debate so that they would be in a position to redress this situation, which previous government had failed to do.

A Workers' member of Colombia considered that the explanation and information provided by the Government representative were not acceptable. He pointed out that violations of this Convention in his country were more and more flagrant. The right to organise was not being respected, and the most recent example of this was the large number of organisations which had disappeared before being established. Save for exceptional cases, workers' organisations had to be set up clandestinely so as to avoid early dismissal of those who wished to set them up; then there was the difficulty of achieving recognition, although by the time the trade union had received this legal status, the union often no longer existed in reality because many of its members had been dismissed. The figures given by the Government representative had to be supplemented by an explanation of why unions had ceased to operate and why there were a number of legal organisations which no longer had any members. Moreover, in October 1988 following the start of a national strike, the Government adopted a series of decrees against the trade union movement including threats of imprisonment and dismissal for those participating. This type of coercive measure was hard to understand in a State calling itself democratic and purporting to enjoy a state of law. According to the speaker it was important to stress the problem of physical violence carried out by terrorists, drug-traffickers, military personnel and para-military groups who assassinated indiscrimately, or carried out by guerrilla groups. That was not perhaps the greatest type of violence suffered by workers: children and old people were abandoned to their fate in the streets; hunger was common in thousands of homes in Colombia; there was the violence of unemployment; the violence of thousands of children dying from hunger or disease; and the violence of increasing social marginalisation, and the terrible level of poverty. It was customary to speak of direct, physical violence and to use that as a shield to obscure the enormous social decomposition that was a reality in the country. The Government should commit itself to ensure compliance with this Convention.

A Workers' member of Spain noted that the basic problem was not the speeding up of administrative procedures required for granting legal personality to trade unions, but rather that trade unions should have a right to set themselves up, draft their own statutes and elect their leaders without authorisation or administrative control and without the presence of government representatives, and to be recognised as a legal entity according to judicial rather than administrative procedures. He hoped that the Government representative could distinguish between administrative and judicial control. He hoped that it was clear to the Committee that there was no greater infringement of trade union freedom than the massive assassination of trade unionists. In that respect, he referred to a report of Amnesty International in April 1990, which found that since November 1986 more than 300 members of the Central Unica de Trabajadores (CUT) had been assassinated for political reasons. The same report indicated that a prominent trade union activist, Sebastian Mosquera, had been assassinated by armed men in the region of Uraba on 9 September 1989. The same report told of the assassination of four other persons, Silvia Margarita Duzan, JosL Vargas, Miguel Barajas and Saúl Castaneda, in the region of Cimitarra, department of Santander, on 26 February 1990. Also two presidential candidates had been assassinated this year. A few days ago, the speaker had received the Secretary-General of the CUT, Mr. Garzon, who was living exiled because Amnesty International had discovered a conspiracy to assassinate him. Amnesty International had reached the conclusion that human rights violation on a massive scale in Colombia was not something that was merely being tolerated by the armed forces; it was in fact the result of a deliberate policy to carry out political assassinations. For these reasons, he felt that the case of Colombia should be placed at least in a special paragraph, if not to be singled out as a case of serious and continued non-compliance.

A Workers' member of Colombia stated that this case was a dramatic one, and recounted that the Confederation, of which she was the Secretary-General (CUT), had lost 381 members by assassination in the CUT's three years of existence. In 1990, between January and May, more than 40 people had been murdered. In the first week of the Conference she had been unable to leave the country because seven workers had been assassinated, two in the banana-growing area, one in the petroleum industry, two university professors and two secondary school teachers, all of them affiliated to trade unions affiliated to the CUT. This meant that she and her colleague, the President of the CUT, were among the survivors. The CUT had paid a heavy price in blood; she also mentioned the assassination of the Secretary-General of the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC), Mr. Victor Almanza, in the town of Pereyra. There was a need to explain to the international community that her country had been in a state of emergency for over 40 years, with very few exceptions. Consequently, when the workers decreed a national work stoppage, it was handled by the Government as a public law and order problem and not as labour conflict, and the army could then enter company premises, factories, and any other place. It was important to take into account the comments of the Committee of Experts on this subject. She stated that Colombia was in the process of losing the right to strike. For example, in the biggest coal mine of Colombia, "Cerrejon", there was a call for a strike and the Government issued an administrative decree to stop the strike, on the grounds that it was a very serious attack on the national economy. Many like cases could be cited, some of which were not strictly strikes, but demonstrations which were called by workers and declared illegal by the Government. This showed that if the Government continued to act in this way the right to strike would no longer exist in Colombia. Referring to the Government representative's statement that there was progress as regarded labour legislation, the speaker asked whether this meant there would be genuinely free elections of trade union leaders without the necessity of submission to the Ministry; whether trade unions were going to be allowed to adopt their own statutes; and whether trade unions would be able to exist without being granted legal personality by the administrative authorities. The speaker gave the recent example of the trade union in the banking sector which had almost lost its legal personality by a decision of the Government. In this connection, the speaker referred to the prohibition of trade union members, particularly in the official sector, participating in political activities. There was a whole series of disciplinary trials on this account, and teachers throughout the country risked losing their jobs for having dared to stand as candidates for public office. This was a case of denial of the political rights of trade unionists. The speaker called upon the ILO to urgently send a mission to the country as had been done in 1988, to help put an end to the bloodbath that was engulfing the country, so that at least some trade unionists could come back and speak before the ILO, for there might soon not be any trade union leaders left alive in Colombia. She sounded a cry of alarm not only to other trade unions, but also to governments and employers, to help as much as they could so that violence would cease; so that impunity would not again become the norm; so that crimes would not go unprosecuted; and so that para-military groups would not longer be created through a resolution issued by the national Government. She recalled that this resolution had been repeated last year, but in fact they continued to act throughout the country. She repeated that, for all these reasons, the ILO had to intervene and she appealed to the international community to end the ferocious political campaign against the trade unions so that the lives and integrity of trade union leaders would be respected.

Another Workers' member of Colombia thanked the Committee for having given extensive time to the case of his country, which proved the international community's interest in the fate of a country which was fighting to remain within the community of civilised nations. Many of those present in this Committee had been present last year when a special paragraph on Colombia was adopted, and he felt that there was no reason not to adopt another special paragraph this year. Although it was important to refer to freedom of association and the right to strike, it was also important to refer to the right to life, without which none of the other rights could exist. Since the last session of the Conference, 91 trade unionists had been assassinated. All this showed that the situation in his country had worsened, that the investigations had not led to the detention of the guilty parties and that the sanctions provided by the penal law had not been applied. Without a doubt, nothing had been done to bring the labour legislation into conformity with the Convention. For example, the speaker recalled the case of the "Cerrejon" mines, pointing out that they were the largest open-cast mines in the world. These mines belonged to the multinational Eon, involved in exploitation of coal and petroleum, and which employed 102,000 workers in 80 countries; its profits for 1988 were over five billion dollars. The workers of this company in Colombia had called a strike to improve their living and working conditions. The Government had argued that this strike affected the economy of the nation, and thus needed to be stopped. The speaker recalled that a strike in any developing country naturally affected the country's economy because if it did not there would be no right to strike. The Committee of Experts had referred to the current restrictions on exercising the right to strike: the Minister could order the strike to cease after 40 days and impose arbitration, which was a clear violation of the Convention. The speaker stated that, given that the workers of Colombia were engaged in the struggle against the drug trade this case warranted the ILO's support and he was certain that the case deserved to appear in a special paragraph and that the necessary assistance should be provided.

A Workers' member of Spain stated that apart from the measures to amend the legislation and to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the present Convention, the Government representative should be asked whether the Government was prepared to arrest and imprison the members of the death squads linked to the army itself and in some cases were even being paid from the State budget; secondly, he wanted to know whether the officials of the Ministry of the Interior would persist in accusing trade unionists of being members of subversive or guerrilla groups without any justification, since these accusations had become a real message of certain death.

A Workers' member of Pakistan considered that the infringement of workers' rights in Colombia, their lack of physical safety and the killings, were not only of concern to them but also concerned the working class all over the world, as well as all freedom-loving people who cared about the welfare of workers. He joined the Colombian workers in the hope that these conditions would come to an end, and that the Government would take measures to protect the life and safety of the workers. The Committee of Experts had indicated on several occasions that the legislation existing in the country denied the basic rights and permitted interference in trade union activities. The legislation should be brought into conformity with the Convention. Since trade unions were a vehicle for achieving better living conditions, they should be allowed to function freely.

A Workers' member of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that the situation in Colombia was of great concern to many people, including trade unionists in his own country. The Colombian trade unionists were subjected to threats and persecution and deserved compassion. The report of Amnesty International, the reports of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and of the Committee on Freedom of Association had referred to very serious violations of trade union and human rights. The particular drama in the case resided in the fact that it was not just a question of violation of international labour standards but also a question of the threat to life, in addition to the question of the right to strike and the right to elect trade union representatives freely. Trade unions had to register and make their financial situation known. They were not protected from uncontrolled terror by armed bands. The situation in Colombia could not be dissociated from question of general violence, so it was not really sufficient to consider trade union questions in isolation. The Committee has to appeal to the Government to combat the terror of armed bands and to eliminate international drug traffickers. This was a task for all countries and one in which the Government of Colombia needed to show more readiness so as to arrive at international co-operation. This Convention could not be applied where basic human rights, including freedom of association were overruled by martial law. The banana-growing Uraba region where 160 of the 260 plantations were unionised was still a major problem area and many trade unions had fallen victim to para-military terror. In 1988 this area had been decreed a military zone by Act No. 678, but in spite of strict controls by the thousands of soldiers who were there, para-military bands were still operating freely. In several cases accusations by state security forces had been shortly followed by the murder of trade unionists by these death squads. The present Committee would have liked to express the hope that with the beginning of the new presidency, the attitude of the Government would be different; but what had been said so far by the Government representatives did not indicate that the Colombian Government would be in a position to guarantee effective protection for the trade unions in the future. Only when bomb attacks on trade union buildings and the repression of union meetings and demonstrations and the killings ceased, could the assurances be trusted that the Government really was prepared to act. The action expected of the Government had already been set out in the Committee of Experts' report; recognition and protection of trade unions so that they could efficently protect the interests of workers, freedom to manage their own finances and to elect their representatives, freedom to call strikes without compulsory arbitration. The discussion had shown that this was a very serious case which called for a special paragraph as provided for in the procedures of the present Committee. The Workers' members of Brazil, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela expressed their solidarity with the workers of Colombia. They supported the inclusion of this case in a special paragraph.

A Workers' member of Chile recalled that a situation like the one described in Colombia had existed in his country for 16 years, but there had been a dictatorship in the country. He stressed that over 100 trade unionists, members of the CUT, had been murdered. He wondered whether the reduction in the number of strikes mentioned by the Government representative was not mainly due to the regime of terror in the country. He considered that freedom of association should include recourse to strike and to collective bargaining. He endorsed the call for a special paragraph.

The Employers' members recalled that last year the Committee of Experts had stated that this was an alarming case of violence. This description was still true today. Obviously very little had changed and it was the practical aspect which caused the greatest concern. Many important things needed to be changed and it was clearly very difficult to regain control of the situation. The Employers' members recalled some stages in the long discussion of this case: direct contacts in 1988; discussions in the present Committee; and a special paragraph in 1989. The Workers' member of the United Kingdom had summed this up by stating that there were not enough provisions to protect unions. This almost could also be expressed in the opposite way: that there were in part too many provisions which were, however, measures of interference. There were detailed legislative requirements for the founding and functioning of unions, the number of members who had to be Colombian, for union rules, financial matters, meetings and the election of union officers. This was a vast area where the Government could adopt the necessary amendments without being absolutely hindered by the problem of drug traffic and the state of emergency. But regrettably nothing concrete had been said about this by the Government representative. In the Committee of Experts' report, there were many references to limitations of the right to strike. With regard to the definition of admissible limitations of the right to strike under this Convention, the Employers' members had somewhat diverging views on certain points which they considered unjustified by reference to the interpretation rules in the Vienna Convention on the Interpretation of Treaties. Apart from that reservation, the Employers' members fully supported what had been said by previous speakers. On the recognition of new trade unions, there were contradictory allegations by the Government and the unions, and this should be a matter for detailed reporting by the Government for examination by the Committee of Experts. There was draft legislation concerning the prohibition of interference in political questions. This draft should also be sent for examination by the Committee of Experts with an indication as to when such a law might be promulgated. There was a long list of other restrictions which had required changes for some time. Therefore, the Employers' members concluded that, following the discussion in which the Government had failed to offer any new facts, their concern had remained the same and in part had even worsened, and this concern ought to be reaffirmed in the Committee's report by following last year's conclusions.

A Government representative of Colombia stated that he had listened with great attention to the statements made by the President of the Central Unica de Trabajadores (CUT) and the statements made by the other Workers' members and the Employers' members. Referring to the political situation, he did not contest the alarming and dramatic figures which had been presented, but considered them incomplete. The situation of violence in Colombia were even more dramatic than what had been described. A state of war existed as a result of the struggle of the establishment against drug-trafficking. It was a struggle to maintain the state of law against those elements who wanted to govern the destiny of the country, but who were themselves a scourge against all of humanity. According to the National Rehabilitation Plan statistics, there had been 9,312 deaths by violence during the past year in Colombia. Between January and June 1990, 186 policemen had been assassinated after drug traffickers had set a price on their heads. Just the day before, while this Committee was in session, five more policemen had been assassinated. A car bomb destroyed three buildings in Medelloin; four people were killed and 60 people were wounded in that attack which was instigated by the drug-traffickers. The people who were killed were not only trade union leaders, but also families, mothers, children, assassinated by drug-traffickers. Employers were killed, people who created progress and productivity. Four members of Parliament were killed, and during the recent electoral campaign three presidential candidates were killed by assassins. The speaker stressed that his country refused to accept this destabilisation. Trade union leaders had indeed been killed, as had ministers of justice, mayors and judges; recently bombs of 800 kilograms of dynamite had been found in an area where six ministers lived. The struggle was being waged with unequal arms. One of the drug magnates who was killed last December, Mr. Rodriguez Cacha, had on his estate 53 million dollars and 58 kilos of gold. It had been incorrectly stated that the situation in Colombia was the same as in June 1989; that was inaccurate because the Government had taken measures. Indeed, in the field of subversion, the Government had negotiated with guerilla groups: the Movement of the 19th of April (M-19), the Popular Liberation Front, the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC), the "Quintén Lame", and the Revolutionary Workers' Party. In an unprecedented effort, the Government had carried on negotiations with the M-19 which ended on 9 March 1990, after 14 months of negotiation. Its leaders were re-incorporated in civilian life and constituted a political party. They had presented a presidential candidate in the last election, but the destabilising forces had assassinated that candidate. After the elections, this party had become the third electoral force in the country with 14 per cent of the votes cast. The speaker himself had represented the Government in the negotiations which were to continue with the People's Liberation Army in order to determine the place where they would deposit their arms. Aside from this struggle against violence, Colombia was carrying on another struggle: 467 industrialists had been kidnapped, for whom millions of pesos were asked as ransom. There were constant thefts and cattle rustling and some multinationals have been prevented from carrying out explorations in the country because of threats; therefore, they gave up the agreements concluded. In spite of these threats against the economy and the violence, the Government had indeed taken decisions. It had incorporated one subversive group into the political life of the country, it was holding peace talks with other subversive movements, it had issued a resolution to dismantle the armed self-defence groups, as one of the Workers' members had pointed out. The Government was aware that a constitutional reform had to be undertaken in order to modernise the institutions of the State. In 1990, a National Constitutional Assembly had been convened to carry out the constitutional reform, which would make it possible to cope with the critical situation prevailing in the country.

Another Government representative of Colombia, refering to the application of Conventions, stated that despite the situation in the country, his Government continued to fulfil its obligations. The Convention on labour statistics had recently been ratified and, with the support of the trade unions, a trade union census had been carried out in the country, so that it was now possible to know the exact situation of trade unions. With regard to the "Cerrejon" strike, after a process of negotiations of 73 days' duration going through all the instances, the Government took a decision which was accepted by the workers, to return imemdiately to work, guaranteeing them in any case full trade union rights. He agreed with the request of the Workers' members and several other members of this Committee that the ILO should send a commission to verify the application of ratified Conventions. He formally asked on behalf of the Government that the ILO designate such a commission in order to co-operate with the Government both in applying the Conventions and in elaborating the draft laws which were in preparation. He had already mentioned that a draft reform of the labour institutions was ready to be submitted to the National Labour Council and that other drafts concerning social security and ratification of certain ILO Conventions were in progress. For these reasons he appealed for international solidarity and technical assistance, as had been given last year by the ILO through PREALC.

The Workers' members, comparing the present situation with the situation in 1989, concluded that on the basis of the Committee of Experts' report and the information supplied by the Government representatives, there had been some slight progress with regard to application of the Convention. However it was a question of good intentions and draft legislation, but as yet there were no concrete measures, which meant that the problems and questions remained. This was true for nearly all the points covered in the report of the Committee of Experts, In particular, the two following points remained: the lack of respect for trade union rights in practice and the prohibition of free expression of trade union organisations which limited their ability to act in defence of the workers. These elements were at the root of the dramatic situation described by the Workers' members. In regard to these two essential points there had been no substantial progress. This had already been this Committee's conclusion in 1989, and one could only repeat it this year: to request the Government to take all the necessary measures to bring its legislation and institutions into conformity with the Convention, to reinstate a climate in which civil liberties - including freedom of association - could be restored, and to guarantee the physical safety of trade unionists. In view of the gravity of this case, the lack of substantial progress, the fact that the same problems had been recurring for several years, and the fact that in 1989 the present Committee had already included a special paragraph in the report, the Workers' members proposed that this year once again the case be mentioned in a special paragraph, in the hope that the new Government would take the situation seriously.

A Government representative recalled that progress had been made this year, and referred again to the constitutional reform underway and to the revision of labour institutions.

A Workers' member of Colombia expressed the hope that his Government would talk with the trade unions regarding the application of this Convention, just as discussions were being held with armed groups.

As the Government representative had invited the trade union representatives to participate in the National Labour Council, the Workers' representative of Colombia replied that the trade unions would willingly participate in the Council if it was to be a decision-making body, but the Council's powers had been revised and the union representatives now could only give advice, contrary to the previous situation where they had enjoyed the right to vote on decisions.

The Committee took note of the report of the Committee of Experts and of the information supplied by the Government representatives and of the detailed discussions which had taken place within this Committee. It also noted that the Government had established both a special committee to examine the whole of its labour legislation and a tripartite National Labour Council to assist in the process of reform. However, as was the case in 1989, the Committee expressed its deep concern at the persistence of a very grave and serious situation, and the persistence of a large number of major and profound discrepancies between law and practice and the requirements of the Convention. Accordingly, the Committee again requested the Government to take all the necessary measures to bring law and practice into full conformity within the Convention. The Committee took note of the Government's request for technical assistance from the ILO in the field of labour relations. It expressed the hope that the Government would be able to report substantial progress in its next report. It decided to mention this case in a special paragraph.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1989, Publication: 76th ILC session (1989)

A Government representative of Colombia stated that his Government was open to review by the supervisory machinery concerning the application of international labour standards. He said that, although there were links between the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association, as regards Convention No. 87 there could be no confusion over their respective functions, as there were differences between the two as to their competence: the Committee of Experts was more concerned with the legal work of comparing general international and national labour standards and had rightly confined itself to mentioning the situation of violence created by minority groups of extremists, delinquents or drug traffickers; the Committee on Freedom of Association, on the other hand, was more concerned with examining actual cases of violations of the Convention. His Government, he declared, was the first to deplore such cases and was most interested in clarifying and punishing the crimes which had taken place, as well as in preventing them from recurring; to this end, it had taken very important measures. Considering that the Committee of Experts had referred to the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, to which his Government had sent a great deal of information, he went on to deal with the issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

As regards the establishment of trade unions and the approval of their rules, he denied the allegation made by the Workers' Central Organisation of Colombia (CUT) that the Government was placing obstacles in the way of the establishment of trade union organisations, by repeatedly denying recognition of their legal personality or approval of their rules. He stated that over the past three years two new confederations had been established, 359 trade unions recognised and duly registered and 294 amendments made to their rules. Over the same period, 2,185 collective agreements were approved. He expressed his Government's intention to study ways of hastening this process, in consultation with the workers' leaders.

The speaker referred to the suspension of legal personality and the incompatibility which the Committee of Experts considered existed between the Convention and section 450 of the Labour Code (which permits the suspension of legal personalities for a period of two to six months and even the dissolution of a trade union as a sanction for an illegal strike); he stated that his Government was ready to examine in detail, with the workers and the employers, ways of changing the law, in so far as, for its part, the trade union movement could guarantee the normal operation of enterprises in which strikes had just finished, since the State had to ensure that the availability of work continued. He said that in normal times, as well as those involving repeated non-compliance by labour unions with the labour legislation provided for in section 380, the Minister of Labour must petition a labour judge for authorisation to impose the penalty provided in the section, suspension of legal personality. He added that in cases of grave disturbance of the public order by virtue of the Constitutional provisions on powers under the state of emergency to safeguard rights for all the population; the Government conferred, by temporary decree, jurisdiction to the Ministry of Labour to exercise, on a case-by-case basis, the authority to suspend legal personality or to dissolve trade unions. Decrees which suspended the legal personality of trade unions as punishment for having taken part in the general strike of October 1988 had been adopted in order to safeguard the authority of the Constitution and had been declared by the Supreme Court to be in conformity with the Constitution. He also referred to Article 4 of Convention No. 111, which stipulates that any measures affecting an individual who is justifiably suspected of, or engaged in, activities prejudicial to the security of the State shall not be deemed to be discrimination. He stated that these decrees had been repealed because the crisis came to an end. He pointed out that, even in a state of emergency, a trade union whose legal personality had been suspended could appeal either through administrative channels, which had the effect of suspending measures taken by the ministry, or through the administrative disputes procedure which, though it does not have a suspensive effect, may be accompanied by a supplementary appeal asking for suspension. He added that Colombian law is in conformity with Convention No. 87 and, in some regards, is more favorable for trade unions, for example, with respect to representation on boards of directors of public establishments. He added also that it was possible that in some regards, the Convention itself was out of mode and modification might be needed to bring it up to date. He then referred to the provisions of the national legislation which the Committee of Experts had considered incompatible with Convention No. 87, namely ministerial approval of amendments to the constitutions of unions, federations and confederations; supervision of the internal management of unions; the suspension, with loss of trade union rights, of trade union leaders who had been responsible for the dissolution of their unions; and the actual obligation to belong to the trade or occupation in order to be considered eligible for election to trade union office. He said the Government was interested in expediting these questions, in examining the degree of compatibility between these provisions and the Convention and the possibility of taking measures to put provisions in conformity with the Convention, in so far as they are not in conformity with regard to the election of foreigners to trade union office, the Government will request information from the ILO on the various national legal systems dealing with this question. As regards the communication of the election of trade union officers to the administrative authorities, he explained that this was a question of informing the labour authorities for registration and not for their approval. He also referred to the prohibition on trade unions from taking part in political matters and, in this respect, he said that in practice the Colombian trade unions participated in politics and that, like every citizen, their members were entitled to take part in elections and be elected and in fact a number of important trade union leaders have taken advantage of this right to be elected in the political arena. He added that this principle tended to protect unionised workers against the political adventuring of a leader who might step out of his strict trade union role and take advantage of a "captive constituency."

It is the intent of the Government to study the possibility of tempering or suspending the current prohibition on strikes by federations and confederations, provided that adequate guarantees are given that the eventual declaration of strikes would concern real employment issues and the Government was conscious of the need for Constitutional guarantees of the right to strike in public services except in essential public services. He pointed out that amendments to the Constitution already proposed by the Government were under way. He added that the administration had no guarantees at all when faced with these strikes, which frequently occurred without the proper conciliation procedures being followed. The speaker declared that, for clear constitutional reasons, his Government had difficulty in accepting the idea of the suppression of compulsory arbitration ordered by the Government in order to terminate strikes affecting the national economy.

As regards prison sentences in cases of the suspension of the right to strike, under a state of emergency, he said that Decree 2004 was no longer in force and that a similar Decree adopted in October 1988 was repealed in December 1988.

The Government would also examine the question of the automatic dismissal of trade union leaders for participation in illegal strikes (which he said were not as automatic as all that), in order to establish which legal improvements might be proposed.

Finally, he said that the national legislation did not place any limit on the duration of strikes but that it guarantees the right of the majority of workers to request the ministry of labour to constitute an arbitral tribunal to resolve strikes of more than 40 days' duration.

In conclusion, he affirmed that, in Colombia, despite the difficult social and economic context, an atmosphere of harmony and collaboration did exist between Government and trade unions, this did not mean there were no differences of opinion, but these could always be resolved in an atmosphere of patience and constructive dialogue. The Government was examining ways of bringing the legislation more closely into line with the Convention. He reiterated its interests in continued co-operation with the Committee of Experts and the present Committee; he stated that some observations were unfounded because of a wrong interpretation of the standards or because the complainants had overlooked the Government's obligation to safeguard higher legal rights through emergency measures.

The Workers members considered that the Government representative's intervention was excessively long and had hindered the problem rather than helped it. They would have liked the Government representative to have supplied replies to the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association and to have given details of the measures taken following the direct contacts mission. As it happened, the Government representative had merely repeated the same formula throughout his intervention, namely that things would be examined later.

The Employers' members believed that after the long statement of the Government representative, it was necessary to highlight certain main points. The point of departure is the great number of complaints and of different findings about the situation in Colombia which, taken altogether, is a cause for much concern. The Committee of Experts had spoken of an alarmingly violent situation and the Government representative had confirmed the situation. The Committee should examine the case against that background; it was not surprising that in such an unusual situation, problems had arisen in relation to freedom of association: authorities appeared to act arbitrarily, there was a lack of sufficiently precise legal provisions and many of them were not complied with. A number of different laws represented too great a form of intervention into the activities of associations, bureaucratic provisions prevented employers and workers from carrying out their work independently, and restrictions were placed upon the activities of organisations. The Committee of Experts considered that restrictions on the right to strike were too stringent; the Employers did not want to raise the point as they were not in agreement with criteria applied by the Committee of Experts. However, there were clear violations of the Convention and they were very concerned about the situation. The Government representative had recognised that the situation was complex but had given little indication of the possibilities for changing it. The situation did not justify regulations and practices which did not conform with the Convention. The Government had to supply a detailed report and indicate its intentions and the changes it would make. Committee should continue examining the case and express concern about the present situation.

The Worker' member of Colombia referred to the fact that some governments appeared to consider as an attack on the nation any complaint made by trade unions before the international authorities regarding non-compliance with obligations entered into with the Organisation. He considered that the important factors in this question were the truth of the complaints made and the opening of the dialogue needed to enable labour legislation to progress. He stated that, in giving the workers' representation at the International Labour Conference to the most representative union group, namely the CUT, the Government had merely complied with its duty, not granted any favours. The speaker stated that the Convention was of the greatest importance to the trade union movement and was the result of a century of workers' struggle; it had still not been ratified by some States and was not respected by others, as was the case in his country. He said that in his country trade unions were still being suspended by administrative authority and that this currently affected over 40,000 workers; Decree No. 939 of 1966, which empowered the Ministry of Labour to suspend strikes lasting over 40 days and to order compulsory arbitration, was still in force and was still being applied.

The President of the Republic could suspend a strike if he considered that it threatened the national economy. The speaker observed that, for years, the Committee of Experts had insisted that some amendments be made. He hoped that the consultations with the unions and the employers would be fruitful and that they would result in proposals to improve the application of the Convention by the next session of the national Congress. However, he found this difficult to imagine since agreement had not been possible even on a minimum wage. The speaker referred to the murders of 276 trade unionists and stated that when the president of CUT was murdered in February 1989, the executive of that organisation had started a hunger strike, which had led to discussions being held between the Ministry of Labour and CUT. On the basis of these discussions, the Government had committed itself to protect the trade unionists and to investigate the crimes. In spite of the good will of the President of the Republic, the facts were clear: the headquarters of CUT in el Meta had been blown up and two more trade union leaders had been murdered by paramilitary groups. The situation was very serious, with 276 murdered trade unionists, and 300 death threats. In short, it was very dangerous to be a trade unionist in Colombia. He appealed for the international solidarity of the world's democratic countries to ensure that the efforts made by the President of the Republic should culminate in the unmasking of the murderers.

On the question of the October 1988 strike, he denied that it had been politically motivated; the CUT and CGT had demanded improved living and working conditions for Colombian workers. Three days before the strike, the Government passed emergency decrees which allowed the arrest and dismissal of strikers and the suspension of the trade union centrals. The decrees had been repealed, but the punishment had been maintained. The suspension is still in force, in spite of the fact that all internal appeal channels have been attempted. Finally, he emphasised that the Colombian trade unionist movement was seeking to engage in dialogue with a view to ending the violence, since without peace there could be no progress; it was a peace movement fighting to defend the right to life, liberty and democracy. He concluded by expressing his faith in the assistance the ILO would bring to the Colombian workers, employers and government, in order to reach the necessary agreements.

The Worker member of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that the Government representative's intervention led him to make the following comments on the links between the Committee on Freedom of Association and the present Committee. The present Committee is accustomed to dealing with cases on non-application of standards, on which it drew its own conclusions. He emphasised that on many points Colombian labour legislation was diametrically opposed to the Convention, as had been stressed by the Committee of Experts in its report. There was an urgent need for the law to be modified so as to settle the question of the legal personality of trade unions and put law and practice into conformity with the Convention. The persistent refusal to make these amendments was most worrying. A direct contacts mission had taken place in 1988 and the case was examined within the Committee on Freedom of Association. Violations of Convention No. 87 were observed in several countries, but in Colombia not only were limitations placed on the activities of trade unions, but also trade unionists wishing to carry out their functions put their lives in danger. There are limits beyond which one cannot go: with drugdealers, the complicity of the police and the armed forces, and illegal activities of paramilitary groups - against even the most elevated dialogue is powerless. Nevertheless, the Government is obligated to guarantee the rights of trade unions, grant the right to strike legally and to protect trade unionists against assassination. In a country where violence prevails, the exercise of trade union rights is also in danger. There have been 276 murdered trade unionists; 1,660 people were murdered between May 1988 and April 1989 and 2,000 had "disappeared". Paramilitary groups terrorise most of the country. The Government, which has not been able to stop these terrorist acts and which uses inadequate means in their pursuit of the guilty should therefore not only review its legislation but also its practice. All criminal activities against trade unionists should be prosecuted and sufficient measures taken to conclude the inquiries into these activities. The Government representative's statements did not show much good will in this respect; he merely justified the maintenance of the existing legal situation, this being characterised by interference in the activities of trade unions, limitation on the right to strike, prohibition on strikes by public servants and invocation of Constitutional provisions. Dialogue between members of the present Committee should consist not merely of the expression of points of view and their repetition: progress should also be able to be registered. The speaker joined with the Worker member of Colombia to stress the right of trade unions to supply observations on the situation in their countries. The exercise of this right should not give rise to discrimination. The numerous murders of trade union leaders provoked the horror of civilised people and the solidarity of all trade unions.

A Worker member of Spain stated that the situation in Colombia was so serious that it went beyond the provisions of the Convention. A Government which does not guarantee to its citizens the most fundamental right, the right to life. With reference to the violation of freedom of association and particularly the suspension of trade unions, he emphasised that according to indications by the Committee of Experts, the Government, in October 1988, was to promulgate new decrees ordering suspensions; nothing has been done to improve this situation. He referred to the appendix of the Committee on Freedom of Association's Report, the first of which contained a list of 79 disappeared or murdered unionists, with regard to whom the Government has communicated no information; 18 of these have been murdered in 1989. In the second appendix, there was a list of 180 trade unionists concerning whom the Committee had requested information on the legal investigations which had been undertaken. The speaker asked the Government representative about a disappeared trade unionist and asserted that until the Government responded, the case of Colombia should be the object of a special paragraph as labour laws were merely a dead letter.

The Worker member of Venezuela expressed his deep concern for the situation of Colombian workers. He considered that the threat to the right to life merited special attention on the part of the present Committee because, without this fundamental right, no other right can be guaranteed. He emphasised the fact that in the seven months since the meeting of the Committee on Freedom of Association in November 1988, when the assassination of 200 trade unionists was noted, 76 more assassinations had taken place. He felt that this violent process of a dirty war sought to resolve the problem of social justice by repression. He thought it necessary to oppose such a process being adopted as a state policy. He made reference to a declaration made by the President of the Republic of Colombia, as a consequence of the strike of October 1988, in which he referred to the decrees that had been adopted and confirmed that these decrees had fulfilled their objective and had defeated the country's enemies. Such a declaration showed that the President's policy was one of repression and assassination of those who fight to defend their rights. Finally, the speaker expressed his wish that this case be the object of a special paragraph.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom declared that this was a difficult, confusing and horrifying case, filled with savagery and death. In his view, the Government representative of Colombia was confused, as he appeared to be indicating that horror was dealt with by the Committee of Experts and that the present Committee dealt merely with its legalistic aspects. On the contrary, observations by the Committee on Freedom of Association had considerable relevance to the work of the present Committee and many of the points made by the Committee on Freedom of Association had been referred to by the Committee of Experts, notably the one concerning the alarming, violent situation in Colombia which generally made it impossible for normal living conditions to be maintained and prevented the full exercise of trade union activity. This was relevant to the work of the present Committee, as was the litany of martyrs to the trade union cause. If a trade unionist was murdered because of his trade union views, then the murder was relevant to the work of this Committee; indeed, being mentioned in this Committee might amount to the only memorial erected to such a victim. The political situation in Colombia was confused, with drug-traffickers and paramilitary organisations operating freely. The contrast was inescapable between a government unable to protect the lives of trade unionists or to control paramilitary organisations, but with sufficient strength, control and law to deal with local strikes, general strikes and other trade union activities. The contrast was also relevant to the work of this Committee. There was no doubt whatsoever that Colombia was not in conformity with the Convention. This had been said by the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Committee of Experts and by this Committee. Furthermore, this Committee would continue saying so, because it was not satisfied with the presentation of the situation by the Government representative. At the end of his statement, the Worker member of Colombia had expressed his faith in the ILO; the Speaker hoped this faith would remain intact after the decisions taken by this Committee.

The Worker member of Uruguay stated that this case should be distressing to all democratic members of the Committee now that this country had become a world leader in the number of workers murdered. He expressed his agreement with the statement of the Employers' members as concerns the need to put an end to this situation. The speaker expressed his disagreement with the explanations given by the Government representative and regretted the fact that the Government tried to justify itself and its violation of the Convention as well as the attacks against the trade union movement by paramilitary groups and drug-traffickers. He felt that the present Committee should include a special paragraph which, in a clear and precise manner, would explain the situation of violation of trade union rights on the Government so that it might recognise and apply, in practice, these rights so that it would give priority to guaranteeing the right to life.

The Workers' members indicated that registration of a case in a special paragraph does not constitute a formal condemnation but does emphasise the grave nature of a case. Their first concern was for an end to the violence which was annihilating civil liberties and freedom of association and was preventing the operation of justice. Reports of supervisory bodies dealing with the situation in the country could help the Government find solutions. On their side, the industrialised countries should make their contribution by more effectively fighting drug-trafficking, one of the scourges of the country; this had already been noted by the spokesman for the workers before the Governing Body. The conscience and solidarity of the world should be awakened. As far as freedom of association was concerned, workers who engaged in trade union activity found themselves face to face with violence, accused of terrorism, and their activities were described as "perverse"; this had to stop. In spite of the direct contacts mission and the recommendation of the Committee on Freedom of Association, it was clear that, at present, freedom of association was not respected either in the law or in practice, notably as regards the legal personality of trade unions and strikes, as the Committee of Experts had pointed out. Changes had to be made and measures had to be taken which should result in tripartite consultation and the assistance of the ILO.

The Government representative declared that he had not referred to the comments of the Committee on Freedom of Association due to lack of time and in view of the numerous questions asked by the Committee of Experts; however, his Government was ready to explain both orally and in written form, as it had always done, these crimes which his Government was the first to deplore. His Government was trying to avoid responding with repression to the attacks against democracy that were being made by violent and delinquent opponents; it preferred dialogue and the participation of all interested parties. As regards the situation described in his country, he referred to the multiple causes of the violence, the drug traffic linked with subversive groups both of the extreme right and of the extreme left. He also referred to the need for the control of arms trafficking, although it should be pointed out that the arms were not manufactured in Colombia. He stated that, in certain cases, his Government had recognised the grounds for the complaints which had been presented to the ILO and other international authorities. These were cases of abuse of power but they did not permit one to affirm that violence was organised systematically by the Government; this had been recognised by the Workers' representative before the Governing Body. The speaker also referred to the report of the direct contacts mission which visited Colombia and which had been submitted to the Governing Body; this referred to a state of generalised violence and to the fact that the victims of this violence were also employers, school-teachers, priests, journalists, people from all levels of society, various civil servants, magistrates, judges, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General. The Workers' members before the Governing Body had asked the Director-General to use his influence to mobilise the United Nations and the specialised agencies in support of the fight against drug-trafficking, which was principally responsible for the current situation in Colombia and he reiterated his Government's interest in supporting all efforts made in this direction.

The Government representative turned to the generale strike of October 1988 which had been called by CUT, CGT and other trade union movements. He stated that it was a political strike and not a strike on labour questions; this he could prove by reading from a text published by the "Coordinadora Guerrilera Simon Bolivar", in which this movement had called for military confrontation and for sabotage activity as ways of participating in the political general strike. He also referred to the fact that the same president of CUT had admitted publicly after the strike that terrorists and other violent elements had defeated the strike and he wondered that would have happened if the Government had not taken emergency measures in the face of this particularly abnormal strike.

The speaker also stated that three decrees had been adopted dealing respectively with: the establishment of a committee to fight against the death squads, bands of gunmen and private self-defence groups (Decree No. 813), the establishment of a special armed corps to fight against these groups (Decree No. 814); and Decree No. 815, which suspended the legal provision allowing the Ministry of Defence to issue weapons which are reserved for the exclusive use of the armed forces to civilians and to use the collaboration of private citizens in national defence activities. He also referred to Decree No. 1,194 of 1988 which deals with the dismantling of training camps for hired gunmen and raised the penalties for training gunmen and other related activities. He insisted that the present Committee take into consideration the external factors which were aggravating the situation in his country, in order to undertake an international action against such activities, for example against arms trafficking. Finally, he expressed the hope that the present Committee's conclusions would take into account the efforts made by his Government, which wished a democratic and progressive situation to exist in the country.

The Government representative stated that his Government respected the conclusions of the Committee, to the point of abstaining from any intervention in their adoption, as he respected the legal belief that you could not be the judge in your own case. However, he wished it to be noted that his Government considered that in the conclusions, greater consideration should have been taken of the efforts made by his Government to fight violence by all the extremist groups and its determination to apply the international labour Conventions as best as possible. Finally, he referred to the difficult economic context which hindered the application of these standards in developing countries.

The Committee had taken note of the information supplied by the Government representative and the detailed discussions which had taken place within the Committee. The Committee noted with profound concern the comments made by the Committee of Experts, which spoke of the persistence of a number of grave divergences between, on the one hand, law and practice and, on the other hand, the provisions of the Convention. It recalled on this score the questions that had been raised by the Committee of Experts over many years. The Committee took note with interest of the report of the direct contacts mission that had travelled to Colombia in September 1988 and of the grave concern of the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee requested the Government to take all necessary measures to bring the law and practice fully into line with the requirements of the Convention, inter alia, in attempting to reintroduce a situation propitious to the full exercise of civil liberties and accordingly the freedom of association and to guarantee the physical safety of trade unionists. The Committee wished to request the Government to hold tripartite consultations and recalled to it the possibility of having resort to the ILO's assistance. The Committee expressed the most sincere hope that the Government would be able to report next year on substantial progress achieved in this field in view of the importance and the gravity of the situation. The Committee decided to mention this case in a special paragraph in its report.

The Government representative stated that his Government respected the conclusions of the Committee, to the point of abstaining from any intervention in their adoption, as he respected the legal belief that you could not be the judge in your own case. However, he wished it to be noted that his Government considered that in the conclusions, greater consideration should have been taken of the efforts made by his Government to fight violence by all the extremist groups and its determination to apply the international labour Conventions as best as possible. Finally, he referred to the difficult economic context which hindered the application of these standards in developing countries.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the comments made by the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT), dated 28 August 2009 and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) of 26 August 2009. These comments relate to matters that are already under examination by the Committee, and particularly acts of violence against trade union leaders and members, including murders and other acts of violence, and the impunity relating to many acts of violence (most acts of violence have been referred to the Committee on Freedom of Association). The Committee also notes the comments made by the National Association of Telephone, Communication and Allied Technicians (ATELCA) related to a case examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee further notes the comments of the National Association of Employers of Colombia (ANDI). The Committee notes various communications from the Government related to these comments, and its reply to the comments made previously by the Union of Maritime and Inland Water Transport Workers (UNIMAR).

The Committee notes the discussions in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in 2009 on the application of the Convention, and particularly the commitment expressed by the Government and the social partners to reinforce social dialogue in the country. The Committee also notes that the Conference Committee invited the Government to continue receiving ILO assistance in relation to all the pending matters.

In this respect, the Committee notes with interest that, pursuant to the conclusions of Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, the Government of Colombia invited the Standards Department of the ILO to undertake a mission to the country with a view to observing the action taken as a result of the conclusions. The mission was undertaken from 19 to 23 October 2009 and interviewed the representatives of the Government and the social partners, as well as the representatives of the principal institutions in the country.

Finally, the Committee also notes the cases examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) concerning Colombia. In this respect, the Committee notes with interest that the Government delivered a communication to the mission indicating that: (1) the Special Committee for the Handling of Conflicts  referred to the ILO (CETCOIT) constitutes a special and particularly valuable forum for creating trust between the social partners; (2) it supports the reinforcement of the procedure and, to this end, will allocate the necessary resources so that it is supported for one year by a university ensuring the process of facilitating the resolution of the cases before the CETCOIT; and (3) it will examine the possibility of having recourse to the procedure of a preliminary contacts mission, envisaged in the rules of procedure of the CFA, as it holds the conviction that implementing all mechanisms can improve industrial relations in the country. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any progress made in the work of the CETCOIT.

Trade union rights and civil and political liberties

The Committee recalls that for many years it has been examining allegations of violence against trade unionists and the situation of impunity, at which it has expressed its concern. The Committee notes that the comments made by the CUT and the ITUC refer to a significant number of acts of violence against trade unionists. In the latest information provided by the CUT to the mission which visited Colombia, it reported that the acts of violence against the trade union movement in 2009 included the murder of 26 unionized workers, and that 38 convictions were handed down in 2009 against those responsible for acts of violence against trade unionists. The CUT further indicated that the trade union movement has provided to the Office of the Attorney-General a list of 2,688 murder victims during the period between January 1986 and 15 March 2009 (which was also submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association in the context of Case No. 1787), but indicates that the list has not been taken into account by the Office of the Attorney-General. Moreover, during their interviews with the mission in October 2009, certain representatives of the trade union movement expressed concern at the possibility that the programme of protection for trade unionists would be ended at the end of 2009.

In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, according to its statistics, 23 trade unionists were murdered in 2009 and that 49 convictions were obtained against those responsible for acts of violence against the trade union movement, while protection measures were provided for 1,450 trade unionists and over US$13 million was provided for protection measures. The Government informed the mission that, with regard to the 23 trade unionists murdered in 2009, the investigations carried out by the Office of the Attorney-General found that 15 were not for trade union reasons and, up to now, of the other eight only one was murdered because of their trade union activities. The Government adds that the number of violent deaths in the country has decreased, that its objective is for there to be no murders of trade unionists and that instructions have been given at the highest level of the Government to protect the trade union movement.

With reference to all of these matters, the Committee expresses appreciation of the tangible commitments given by the Government in a communication that it delivered to the mission which visited the country in October 2009. The communication stated that “for the State of Colombia, it is of crucial importance to elucidate violent acts committed against trade union leaders and unionized workers. In this respect, the Government undertakes to allocate the necessary financial resources for the strengthening of the Trade Union Members Sub-Unit of the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney-General of the Nation and the Specialized Magistrates of the Higher Council of the Judiciary, so that they can complete the investigation of the acts of violence alleged in the context of Case No. 1787”. The communication also indicates that “the Government, with the assistance of the ILO, will enter into dialogue with the workers’ federations on the criteria to harmonize information on acts of violence against the trade union movement, for transmission to the investigatory bodies, and in this manner support the investigations”. With regard to the protection of trade unionists, the Government’s communication notes that “in relation to the preventive measures to avoid new acts of violence against trade union leaders and workers, the Government undertakes to continue the protection programme and to continue allocating resources to its financing and affirms that, irrespective of the body implementing protection measures, responsibility for the programme will always rest with the State.” The Committee also notes the statement by the Office of the Attorney-General to the mission that it is prepared, with the additional funding made available to it by the Government, to conduct investigations into all the allegations contained in Case No. 1787 that is under examination by the Committee on Freedom of Association (concerning over 2,600 murders since 1986, to which the CUT refers in its comments).

The Committee further notes with satisfaction the adoption of Act No. 1309 of 2009, concerning the examination of which the Government had provided information to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, and which: (1) provides that the time limit for the prescription of acts punishable as murder of a member of a legally recognized trade union organization shall be 30 years; (2) considers as an aggravating circumstance for the imposition of penalties crimes against members of a trade union organization or human rights ombudsperson; (3) provides that any person who prevents or disturbs a lawful assembly or the exercise of rights granted by labour laws or engages in reprisals on grounds of strike action, assembly or legitimate association, shall be liable to a fine of between 100 and 300 minimum monthly wages as established by law; and (4) provides that, in the event of threats or intimidation against a member of a trade union organization, the penalty shall be increased by one third. The Committee also notes with interest that the authorities of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice confirmed to the mission that the Victims Compensation Fund established by Act No. 975 on Justice and Peace, applies to cases related to trade union leaders and members and its coverage currently amounts to 177 trade union leaders.

The Committee once again expresses deep regret at the murders and acts of violence against trade unionists which have been occurring for many years and those that have occurred in 2009, since the previous examination of the application of the Convention. Taking into account the gravity of the situation, the Committee recognizes all the measures, of a practical and legislative nature, that the Government has been adopting recently to combat violence in general and violence against the trade union movement, and it notes a decrease in the murders of trade unionists between 2008 and 2009, and in violence in general. The Committee hopes that the new measures will make it possible to combat violence against trade unionists effectively and will lead to the conviction of those responsible. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report on any developments in this respect.

Pending legislative and practical matters

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations. The Committee referred previously to the use of associated work cooperatives as a contractual mechanism which, according to the allegations of trade union organizations, can cover actual employment relationships and are used for the performance of functions and work that are within the normal activities of the establishment and under which workers may not establish or join trade unions. The Committee noted in its previous observation the approval by the Congress of the Republic, on 22 July 2008, of Act No. 1233 respecting associated work cooperatives, following lengthy consultations with the representative organizations of associated work cooperatives, workers’ federations, branch organizations representing employers and academic circles. On that occasion, the Committee noted that the Act refers to the “workers” of cooperatives and in that context recalled that under the terms of Article 2 of the Convention, all workers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report, and the indication provided to the mission, that the new Act prohibits the use of cooperatives as a mechanism for labour mediation and grants the administrative authority the means to penalize such conduct. The representatives of the ANDI indicated to the mission that nothing currently prevents workers in cooperatives from establishing and registering trade unions, as unions exist in this sector. It referred in this respect to the SINTRACORTEROS trade union. The representatives of the workers indicated to the mission that there is a proliferation of cooperatives and that the workers in such cooperatives are not allowed to exercise the right to organize or to engage in collective bargaining. In this respect, taking into account the contradictory indications provided, the Committee requests the Government to consider the possibility of an independent expert undertaking a national study on the application of the Act respecting cooperatives and their use in the area of industrial relations, and also to clarify the issue of whether or not workers in cooperatives can organize. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on this matter in its next report.

Right to establish organizations without previous authorization. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the arbitrary refusal by the authorities to register new trade union organizations, new trade union rules or the executive committee of a trade union at the discretion of the authorities for reasons that go beyond the explicit provisions of the legislation. In this respect, the Committee requested the Government to repeal the provision of Resolution No. 626 of February 2008 which establishes, among the causes for which the competent official may refuse an entry in the trade union register, “that the trade union organization has been established for purposes that are different from those deriving from the fundamental right of association”. In this respect, the Committee notes with interest ruling No. 695 of 2008 of the Constitutional Court, which provides that “the expression ‘its legal recognition [of the union] shall be the result of the mere registration of the founding statutes’, contained in article 39 of the Constitution, this statement shall be interpreted in conformity with the principle of publicity, in the meaning that such recognition does not consist of the granting of legal personality to the union, nor an act declaring its legal existence by the State, but that the founding statutes may be asserted or produce legal effects in respect of the State, as a third party, with the inclusion of all its bodies, in relation to the participants of the expression of the collective will to found the union, namely those who founded the union, and in respect of all third parties, and primarily the employer, on the basis of the above registration. Based on the above statement and taking into account that section 372, first indent, of the Substantive Labour Code (as replaced by section 50 of Act No. 50 of 1990, and explicitly amended by section 6 of Act No. 584 of 2000), may be interpreted in the sense that the registration of the founding statutes of the union with the Ministry of Social Protection is a requirement for the existence and lawful status of the union. This interpretation of section 372 would be contrary to the provisions of article 39 of the Political Constitution, and Article 2 of Convention No. 87 of the ILO, which forms part of the constitutional provisions, such that the incorporation shall be declared enforceable as conditioned by such expression, in relation to the functions examined in this ruling, on the understanding that such registration shall exclusively fulfil functions of publicity, without authorizing the Ministry referred to above to carry out prior controls of the content of the founding statute.”

The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that, in accordance with this ruling, Resolution No. 626 of 2008 is not applicable and that, as a consequence, the Ministry of Social Protection has been depositing, immediately upon presentation in person, documents setting out the decision to establish trade union organizations, new executive committees and amendments to their statutes, without the application of a procedure and without prior control.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee recalls that for a number of years it has been referring to the prohibition of strikes, not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in a very broad range of services that are not necessarily essential (section 430(b), (d), (f), (g) and (h); section 450(1)(a) of the Labour Code, Tax Act No. 633/00 and Decrees Nos 414 and 437 of 1952, 1543 of 1955, 1593 of 1959, 1167 of 1963, and 57 and 534 of 1967) and the possibility to dismiss workers who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (section 450(2) of the Labour Code), even when the unlawful nature of the strike is a result of requirements that are contrary to the principles of freedom of association. In this respect, the Committee notes the ruling of the Labour Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, of 3 June 2009 (No. 40428), indicating that the Constitutional Court in each individual case referred to it will examine whether or not a particular activity, taking into account its material content, corresponds to an essential service. The Supreme Court finds that “in accordance with constitutional doctrine, even where there may exist a legislative definition of the classification of a public service as essential, this does not prevent it being determined through interpretation that in a specific case a certain activity may effectively be considered an essential public service in view of its material content”. The ruling continues by indicating that “this must be the case, as article 56 of the Constitution cannot lay down for the legislator an absolute classification such that the terms of the higher level or supra-legal text is sufficient in itself for the determination of a matter, without the interpreter examining its spirit or its objective, in the light of the constitutional principles”. The Committee observes that it was found in the context of this ruling that “it may not be affirmed that the rail transport of freight may be considered an essential public service”.

The Committee also notes the Government’s indication to the mission in a written communication setting out its readiness to examine in a tripartite forum in the context of the National Dialogue Commission on Wage and Labour Policies the legislative discrepancies that are still pending before the ILO supervisory bodies. In this respect, the Committee observes that, in accordance with Act No. 1210 (amending section 451 of the Substantive Labour Code) “the legality or unlawful nature of a collective labour suspension or stoppage shall be the subject of a judicial ruling in a priority procedure, and that in accordance with the above holding, it rests with the judicial authorities to determine when a service is essential”. Under these conditions, the Committee hopes that the highest judicial authority will take into account the principles of the supervisory bodies in relation to essential services, in which the right to strike may be prohibited or restricted, and it requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any development in the case law on this matter and whether it is envisaged that the legal provisions referred to above will be repealed or amended.

Declaring a strike illegal. In its previous observation, the Committee noted the adoption of Act No. 1210 of 2008, amending section 451 of the Substantive Labour Code to read as follows: “the legality or unlawful nature of a collective work suspension or stoppage shall be declared by the judicial authorities in a priority procedure”. The Committee takes due note of the fact that, following the adoption of this Act, the Constitutional Court handed down ruling
No. C-349/09 declaring unconstitutional section 1(2) of Act No. 1210, which empowered the President of the Republic, with a prior favourable opinion issued by the Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, to order the cessation of a strike at any time and the referral of the disputes which gave rise to it to compulsory arbitration where the strike, in view of its nature, is seriously prejudicial to the health, safety, public order or the economy of the whole or part of the population.

Compulsory arbitration. In its previous observation, the Committee noted that Act No. 1210 amends section 448(4) of the Substantive Labour Code and provides that: (1) the employer and the workers may, within the following three days of a labour dispute, convene any settlement, conciliation or arbitration machinery; (2) if they do not reach agreement, automatically or at the request of the parties, the Commission for Dialogue on Wage and Labour Policies shall intervene and use its good offices for a maximum of five days; (3) once this period has elapsed without it being possible to achieve a definitive solution, both parties shall request the Ministry of Social Protection to convene an Arbitration Board; and (4) the workers shall be under the obligation to return to work within three days. In this respect, the Committee takes due note of the fact that a Government representative at the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards confirmed that the request to refer disputes to an Arbitration Board must be made by both parties. The Committee observes that this was also confirmed to the mission which visited the country in October 2009.

Article 6. Restrictions imposed on the activities of federations and confederations. The Committee has been referring for several years to the prohibition on the calling of strikes by federations and confederations (section 417(i) of the Labour Code). The Committee recalled that higher level organizations should be able to resort to strikes in the event of disagreement with the Government’s economic and social policy and requested the Government to amend the above provision. The Committee notes the indication by the Government in a written communication that it is prepared to analyse, in a tripartite forum in the context of the National Dialogue Commission on Wage and Labour Policies, the pending legislative discrepancies that are before the ILO supervisory bodies. The Committee also observes that, under the terms of Act No. 1210, a strike called by a federation or confederation may only be declared illegal by the judicial authorities. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any developments in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee recalls that it previously requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the trade union contracts provided for in sections 482 to 484 of the Labour Code and which had not been used until recently. The Committee recalls that these are contracts concluded by one or more unions of workers with one or more employers or employers’ organizations for the provision of services or the execution of a task by their members. The Committee observes that, in accordance with section 483, “the workers’ trade union that has concluded a trade union contract shall be liable both for the direct obligations arising out of the contract and for compliance with those established for its members, except in the event of mere suspension of the contract, as envisaged by the law or the agreement, and shall have the legal personality to exercise both the rights and the actions that correspond to it directly, as well as those that correspond to each of its members. For these purposes, each of the contracting parties shall constitute an adequate surety; otherwise, it shall be understood that the assets of each party shall cover the respective obligations”. The Committee notes Decree No. 657 of 3 March 2006 issuing regulations under the above sections. In this respect, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of trade union contracts (purpose, liabilities), specifying the number of such contracts concluded and providing copies of some contracts by way of example.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes the comments made on the application of the Convention by the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT), the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) and the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC), dated 13 June 2008; by the CGT in a communication of 19 August 2008; the CTC in a communication of 22 August 2008; the CUT in communications dated 28 January, 13 June and 27 August; and the CUT and the CTC jointly in a communication dated 31 August. These communications refer to matters that are under examination by the Committee, and particularly to acts of violence against trade union leaders and members, including murders, kidnappings, attempted murder and disappearances; the grave impunity surrounding such acts; the use of associated labour cooperatives and other forms of contracts which make it impossible for workers to establish or join unions; the arbitrary refusal by the authorities to register new trade unions, new statutes or the executive committees of unions; and the prohibition of the exercise of the right to strike in certain services which go beyond essential services. The Committee also notes the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) of 29 August 2008, which are being translated. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the communication by the CUT dated 28 January 2008. It requests the Government to provide its comments on all the observations made by trade unions.

The Committee notes the discussions in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in 2008. It also notes the reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association on various cases that it is examining concerning Colombia, adopted at its sessions in March, June and November 2008.

Trade union rights and civil and political liberties

The Committee notes that the comments made by the CUT, CGT and CTC refer to the rise in the rate of murders of trade union leaders and members in 2008, amounting to ten trade union leaders and 30 trade union members. They also report an increase in the number of death threats. The trade union confederations recognize the efforts made by the Government to provide security to trade union leaders and members, but consider that they are not sufficient. They refer once again to the stigmatization of the trade union movement as sympathizing with the guerrillas and movements on the extreme left, which leaves them in a grave situation of vulnerability.

In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that during the course of 2007 the Government programme of protection for persons under threat took measures to the value of $13 million out of a total of $40 million. These measures were intended to protect the members of the trade union movement, who account for 20 per cent of the beneficiaries. For 2008, the investment budget is estimated at $45 million and up to June 2008 had benefitted 1,466 trade unionists, or 18 per cent of beneficiaries.

The Government adds that: (1) the trade union confederations were informed of the requirement for department police commanders to submit monthly reports to the Administrative Security Department, the Office of the Public Prosecutor General of the Nation and trade union leaders on the situation with regard to threats and the protection of trade unionists within their jurisdiction; and (2) a virtual network mechanism will be established to deal with risk alerts in real time in the same way as for mayors and councillors.

In this regard, while appreciating all the measures adopted by the Government, and particularly the increase in funding for the protection of trade union leaders and members, the Committee notes with deep concern the rise in the number of trade union leaders and members who have been murdered. The Committee emphasizes the need to eradicate violence so that workers’ and employers’ organizations can exercise their activities in full freedom. The Committee once again firmly urges the Government to continue taking all the necessary measures to guarantee the right to life and safety of trade union leaders and members so as to allow the due exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Convention.

With reference to the measures to combat impunity, the CUT, CGT and CTC recognize the efforts made by the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation to proceed with investigations into cases of grave violations of the human rights of trade unionists, but emphasize that only a very low percentage of investigations reach the courts and result in the conviction of those responsible. They also emphasize the lack of information on the situation of the proceedings in a large number of complaints of acts of violence against trade unions and that investigations are not systematic. The trade union organizations further regret that the decongestion courts are not of a permanent nature.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in this respect that the national general budget for 2008 authorized the Office of the Prosecutor General to increase its personnel by 2,166 officials, which will mean that the special subunit for cases of trade unionists could increase in size to 19 prosecutors (it previously had 13). The Government adds that it will continue offering rewards of up to US$250,000 for information leading the capture of those responsible for crimes against trade unionists. It adds that Act No. 599 of 2000 deems the murder of trade unions leaders to be aggravated homicide, but not the murder of members of the trade union movement. For this reason, the Government submitted to the legislature Bill No. 308 in June 2008 seeking to increase sentences from 17 to 30 years for the murder of trade union members and to impose fines of up to 300 minimum wages on employers which restrict freedom of association. Moreover, at the request of the national Government, the Higher Judicial Council, through the decision of 25 June 2008, made the three decongestion courts established in July 2007 permanent. These courts have been devoted exclusively to ruling on cases of violations of the rights of trade unionists, issuing 44 sentences in 2007 and 24 up to July 2008.

The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the monthly report on the protection of trade union leaders and members and on impunity was presented to the Inter-Institutional Commission on the Human Rights of Workers, held on 29 July 2008, which included the participation of representatives of workers, employers, the Government and the ILO representative in Colombia. According to the Office of the Prosecutor General, of a total of 117 convictions, it was found in 21 cases that the reason for the acts of violence was the trade union activity of the victim. Under the terms of these 117 sentences, 192 persons were convicted and 128 imprisoned. Of the total of 117 convictions, 115 were handed down during the term of the present Government and 68 were issued over the past three months as a result of the establishment of decongestion courts. Of the 192 convictions, responsibility was found to lie with the public authorities in 15 cases, with the Self-Defence Units of Colombia in 93 cases, with the guerrillas in 24 cases, with a group outside the law in one case, with a trade unionist in one case, with common delinquents in 56 cases and with the Aguilas Negras (an emerging group) in two cases.

The Committee notes that in its conclusions in 2008 the Committee on the Application of Standards, while noting the efforts made by the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Nation to secure progress in the investigation of serious human rights violations against trade unionists, as well as the appointment of three judges especially dedicated to hearing cases of violence against trade unionists (decongestion courts), expressed its concern at the increase in acts of violence against trade unionists in the first half of 2008 and urged the Government to take further steps to reinforce the available protection measures and to ensure that investigations of murders of trade unionists are more effective and expeditious.

The Committee notes all the measures adopted by the Government and the efforts made, which are recognized by trade union organizations, to carry out investigations of violations of the human rights of trade unionists. Nevertheless, it regrets that the number of convictions continues to fall and that a large number of investigations are only at the preliminary stages. Under these conditions, the Committee requests the Government to continue taking all the measures possible to carry forward and facilitate all investigations relating to acts of violence against the trade union movement and expresses the firm hope that the measures adopted recently concerning the appointment of new prosecutors and judges will reduce the situation of impunity and will clarify the acts of violence committed against trade union leaders and members, and result in the apprehension of those responsible. The Committee emphasizes the role played by the decongestion judges and hopes that they will continue discharging their duties.

Furthermore, the Committee recalls that it requested the Government to keep it informed of the manner in which Act No. 975 on justice and peace is applied, particularly in cases involving trade union leaders and members. The Committee notes that, according to the trade union organizations, paramilitaries who have submitted to the rule of law have provided very little information on the murder of trade unionists and trade union leaders. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide the information requested.

Pending legislative and practical matters

The Committee recalls that it has been making comments, in some instances for many years, on the following matters.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations. The Committee referred previously to the use of various types of contractual arrangements, such as associated work cooperatives, service contracts and civil or commercial contracts which cover actual employment relationships and are used for the performance of functions and work that are within the normal activities of the establishment and under which workers may not establish or join trade unions. In this respect, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that full effect is given to Article 2 of the Convention so that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, enjoy the right to establish and join unions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication concerning the regulations applicable to temporary service enterprises and cooperatives. In particular, the Committee notes the Government’s indication of the approval by the Congress of the Republic, on 22 July 2008, of Act No. 1233 respecting associated work cooperatives, following lengthy consultations with the representative organizations of associated work cooperatives, workers’ federations, branch organizations representing employers and academic circles. The Act regulates the activities of associated work cooperatives, third-party contractors and the competence of the Supervisory Authority for Economic Solidarity and the Ministry of Social Protection to impose penalties. According to the Government, the most important features of the Act include: (1) that it establishes the minimum wage as the basis for ordinary compensation and the requirement to pay contributions to the social security, employment injury and pension branches and compensation funds; (2) employment placement is prohibited and, where it occurs, employers’ responsibilities apply to cooperatives and third-party contractors; and (3) it establishes a self-governing code for representative organizations of cooperatives and a commitment by representative organizations of cooperatives in relation to the principles of the ILO and those of the International Co-operative Alliance. The Committee observes that a reading of the Act shows that: (1) section 3 establishes ordinary monthly compensation in accordance with the work performed, productivity and the quantity of work undertaken by the “associated worker”; (2) section 9 refers to workers “who provide their services in associated work cooperatives or pre-cooperatives”; (3) under the terms of section 12, “the social object of cooperatives and pre-cooperatives consists of generating and maintaining work for associates in a self-managed manner, with autonomy, self-determination and self-direction”; (4) section 12, second paragraph, provides that “associated work cooperatives whose activity is the provision of services to the health, transport, vigilance, private security and education sectors shall be specialized in the respective branch of activity”; and (5) the organizations of cooperatives to which the Act refers are not trade union bodies. Observing that the Act itself refers to the “workers” of cooperatives, the Committee recalls that under the terms of Article 2 the Convention, all workers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee also recalls that the criterion for determining the persons covered by this right is not based on the existence of a labour relationship with an employer and that the concept of worker includes not only dependent workers, but also workers who are self-employed or autonomous. In this respect, the Committee considers that associated workers in cooperatives should be able to establish and join the trade union organizations of their own choosing. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee explicitly that all workers, without distinction, including workers in cooperatives and those covered by other forms of contracts, irrespective of the existence of a labour relationship, enjoy the guarantees afforded by the Convention.

Rights to establish organizations without previous authorization. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the arbitrary refusal by the authorities to register new trade union organizations, new trade union rules or the executive committee of a trade union at the discretion of the authorities for reasons that go beyond the explicit provisions of the legislation. The Committee requested the Government to take steps to amend the provision of Decree No. 1651 of 2007 which established as one of the grounds for denying registration “that the trade union organization has been established, not to guarantee the fundamental right of association, but to secure labour stability” and to register new organizations or executive committees, as well as amendments to rules, without undue delay. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, by virtue of the Substantive Labour Code, the grounds for refusing to register a trade union are limited and that the decision by the Ministry of Social Protection not to register a trade union when it does not comply with the respective legal requirements is not a discretional power. Furthermore, such a decision has to be based on a reasoned administrative decision that is subject to administrative and judicial appeal. The Committee nevertheless notes that Resolution No. 1651 has been repealed by Resolution No. 626 of February 2008, although the latter resolution includes in section 2 among the grounds upon which the competent official may refuse an entry in the trade union register, “that the trade union organization has been established for purposes that are different from those deriving from the fundamental right of association”. In this respect, the Committee recalls once again that Article 2 of the Convention guarantees the right of workers and employers to establish organizations without previous authorization from the public authorities and that national regulations governing the constitution of organizations are not in themselves incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, provided that they are not equivalent to a requirement for previous authorization and do not constitute such an obstacle that they amount in practice to a prohibition (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 68 and 69). The Committee further considers that the administrative authority should not be able to deny registration of an organization merely because it considers that it might devote itself to activities that although legal may go beyond normal trade union activities. In these circumstances, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to abrogate the provision of Resolution No. 626 of February 2008 which establishes as one of the grounds for refusing entry into the register for a trade union organization “that the trade union organization has been established for purposes other than those deriving from the fundamental right of association” and to register new organizations, executive committees and amendments to rules without undue delay.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee also referred previously to the prohibition of strikes, not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in a very broad range of services that are not necessarily essential (section 430(b), (d), (f), (g) and (h); section 450(1)(a) of the Labour Code, Tax Act No. 633/00 and Decrees Nos 414 and 437 of 1952, 1543 of 1955, 1593 of 1959, 1167 of 1963, 57 and 534 of 1967) and the possibility to dismiss workers who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (section 450(2) of the Labour Code), even when the unlawful nature of the strike is a result of requirements that are contrary to the principles of freedom of association. The Committee previously requested the Government, in the context of a Bill that was being examined by Congress and which envisaged certain amendments to the Labour Code, to amend the provisions referred to above and invited the Government to have recourse to the Office’s technical assistance. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (1) when assessing the divergent interests, for the purpose of defining essential public services, the legislator has to start from a serious objective and reasonable basis so that the respective regulation maintains proportionality between compliance with the fundamental rights of users and the right to strike of workers; (2) the Constitution recognizes the right to strike, although it is not absolute; and (3) under the terms of Act No. 1210 of 14 July 2008, the Standing Dialogue Commission on Wage and Labour Policies, which is tripartite, shall submit a report within six months on the draft texts that it has submitted in relation to articles 55 (collective bargaining) and 56 (strike action and essential services) of the Constitution. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in amending the legislation with regard to the very broad range of services in which, as they are deemed essential, the right to strike is prohibited, and section 450, second paragraph, under which workers who have participated in a strike in such services can be dismissed.

Declaring a strike illegal. The Committee previously noted the formulation of a Bill under which the competence to declare strikes illegal was transferred from the Ministry of Social Protection to the judicial authorities. The Committee notes with satisfaction that Act No. 1210 has amended section 451 of the Substantive Labour Code to read as follows: “the legality or illegality of a collective work suspension or stoppage shall be declared by the judicial authorities in a priority procedure”.

Compulsory arbitration. The Committee referred previously to the authority of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike exceeds a certain period – 60 days – (section 448(4) of the Labour Code). The Committee noted a Bill to amend this section, providing that where it is not possible to achieve a definitive solution, the parties or one of them shall request the Ministry of Social Protection to convene an arbitration board. The Committee notes that Act No. 1210 amends section 448(4) of the Labour Code and provides that: (1) the employer and the workers may, within the following three days, convene any settlement, conciliation or arbitration machinery; (2) if they do not reach agreement, automatically or at the request of the parties, the Commission for Dialogue on Wage and Labour Policies shall intervene and use its good offices for a maximum of five days; (3) once this period has elapsed without it being possible to achieve a definitive solution, both parties shall request the Ministry of Social Protection to convene an Arbitration Board; and (4) the workers shall be under the obligation to return to work within three days. In this respect, the Committee considers that, except in essential services in the strict sense of the term or in the case of public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, the convening of the Arbitration Board should only be possible where both parties so decide voluntarily in common agreement. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 448(4) as indicated above.

Article 6. Restrictions imposed on the actions of federations and confederations. The Committee referred previously to the prohibition on the calling of strikes by federations and confederations (section 417(i) of the Labour Code). The Committee recalled that higher level organizations should be able to resort to strikes in the event of disagreement with the Government’s economic and social policy and requested the Government to amend the above provision. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that federations and confederations cannot be assimilated to first-level organizations since those who hold a legal interest in collective bargaining are the workers who are members of enterprise, industry or branch trade unions and the employers to whom lists of claims have been submitted. The Government adds that if federations and confederations do not have a legal interest in collective bargaining, then they clearly have much less interest in strikes. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the guarantees provided to first-level organizations by Article 6 of the Convention also apply to higher level organizations. Indeed, in order to defend the interests of their members more effectively, workers’ and employers’ organizations need to have the right to establish federations and confederations of their own choosing, which should themselves enjoy the various rights accorded to first-level organizations, in particular as regards their freedom of operation, activities and programmes (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 195 and 198). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 417(i) so as not to prohibit the right to strike of federations and confederations.

Observing that it has been making comments for many years, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures without delay to amend the legislative provisions commented upon and bring them into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures adopted in this respect.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on another point.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

In earlier comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the trade union contracts provided for in sections 482–484 of the Substantive Labour Code and which had not been used until recently. The Committee recalls that these are contracts concluded by one or more union of workers with one or more employers or employers’ organizations for the provision of services or the execution of a task by their members. The Committee observes that, according to section 483, “a workers’ trade union which has concluded a trade union contract shall be liable both for the direct obligations arising out of the contract and for compliance with those established for its members, except in the event of mere suspension of the contract, as envisaged by the law or the agreement, and shall have the legal personality to exercise both the rights and the actions which correspond to it directly, as well as those which correspond to each of its members. For these purposes, each of the contracting parties shall constitute an adequate surety; otherwise, it shall be understood that the assets of each party shall cover the respective obligations”. The Committee observes that the Government has not sent its comments on the above. In these circumstances, the Committee once again asks the Government to provide information on the application in practice of trade union contracts (purpose, liabilities) specifying the number of such contracts concluded and to furnish copies of some such contracts by way of an example.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. It also notes the communication addressed by the Ministry of Social Welfare to the Director-General of the ILO which was read out in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in 2007. In it, the Ministry reaffirms its commitment to the Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy, signed by the Government and representatives of the employers and workers in Geneva on 1 June 2006, and expresses its resolve to further the implementation of the Agreement. The Government also notes the Director-General’s reply, indicating that the Office will provide all possible assistance for effective implementation of the measures announced and proposing that a high-level mission, appointed by himself, should be sent by the International Labour Office to identify new needs with a view to ensuring effective application of the Tripartite Agreement and the technical cooperation programme. The Committee further notes the numerous cases concerning Colombia currently before the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Committee notes the comments on the application of the Convention submitted on 28 August 2007 by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and those from the Single Confederation of Workers (CUT), the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) and the Confederation of Pensioners of Colombia (CPC) in a communication of 28 May 2007, and those of 31 August 2007 from the CUT which refer to matters the Committee has been raising, particularly acts of violence against trade union leaders and trade unionists including killings, abductions, attempts on their lives and disappearances. They likewise refer to the serious impunity surrounding these acts; the use of associated work cooperatives so that workers are unable to form and join unions; the arbitrary refusal to register new trade union organizations or new statutes or executive boards of unions; and the prohibition on strikes and certain services other than essential services.

Situation of violence and impunity

Regarding the acts of violence against trade union members and leaders, the ITUC states that most of such acts are associated with industrial disputes. It again observes that paramilitary groups view the trade union movement as sympathetic to guerrillas and the extreme left and that this makes it very vulnerable. According to the ITUC, the efforts made by the Government to ensure the security of trade union leaders are insufficient. In 2006, 78 murders were reported, the education sector being the most affected, with a total of 49 murders. The ITUC also refers to numerous threats and attacks. The Colombian central organizations, for their part, refer to systematic anti-union violence, alleging the involvement of several state institutions that have links with paramilitary groups and drug traffickers responsible for the murders of several well-known trade union leaders. They further state that in most cases, responsibility for the killings can be attributed to paramilitary groups. According to the ITUC, although to a lesser extent, the guerrillas have also participated significantly in acts of violence against trade unionists.

The Committee notes that in responding, the Government refers to the protective measures adopted under the protection programme set up in 1997. It adds that the programme’s budget has been consistently increased, and provides a detailed list of the number of protection measures authorized, pointing out that at present, 25.25 per cent of such protection goes exclusively to the trade union movement in the form of reinforcement of their headquarters, escorts, armoured cars and bulletproof vests, among other protective measures. Furthermore, a policy for the protection and security of democracy has been devised to provide effective protection for the rights of Colombians which is being implemented in coordination with all government bodies, with the result that the number of homicides has dropped, including the killings of trade unionists. In view of the fact that education is the sector most affected by the murders, the Government states that in cooperation with the Colombian Federation of Educators (FECODE), a national working party on teachers under threat has been set up in which the Ministry of Social Welfare, the Ministry of National Education, the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, the national police and the Presidential Human Rights Programme participate. Under the latter programme, numerous teachers have been relocated. The Government states that there were 18 murders in 2007, and reiterates its resolve to reduce this figure to zero.

The Committee notes with concern that members of trade unions continue to be the target of serious acts of violence because of their union membership. The Committee notes that the Government made significant efforts to ensure protection for trade union members and leaders and for trade union headquarters. It nonetheless observes that the number of persons being protected has declined and considers that the protection effort needs to be strengthened. Consequently, it points out once again that a truly free and independent trade union movement can develop only in a climate of respect for fundamental human rights (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 26) and that employers’ and workers’ organizations can carry on their activities freely and meaningfully only in a climate free from violence. Accordingly, the Committee again urges the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure the right to life and security of trade union leaders and members so that they may fully exercise the rights guaranteed by the Convention. With regard to protective measures in particular, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to provide for all trade unionists who so request, measures for their protection which are adequate and which command their trust.

As to the measures against impunity, the Colombian central unions acknowledge the efforts of the Attorney-General to secure progress in the investigation of serious human rights violations against trade unionists, though they emphasize that only a minute percentage of investigations reach the trial or sentencing stage.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that in the context of the commitment made under the Tripartite Agreement, on 15 September 2006 the Government and the Attorney-General signed Inter-administrative Agreement No. 15406 to further the investigation of violations of the human rights of trade unions, the aims of which are: (1) to devise strategies to clarify the facts; (2) to identify and punish the perpetrators and accomplices; (3) to prevent offences that abuse the human rights of trade unions by adopting the necessary institutional, national and local plans and programmes. To this end, the Attorney-General has appointed 13 public prosecutors, with a group of criminal police investigators and a technical investigation unit comprising 78 persons, plus 24 lawyers to back up the investigations. The investigations are devoted in particular to the murders reported in the context of Case No. 1787, currently before the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Government adds that the Higher Council of the Judiciary appointed three dedicated judges to hear cases referred by the Attorney-General. The Government has sent a long list of investigations (48) that ended with the conviction of the perpetrators of acts of violence against trade union leaders. The sentences were pronounced between June 2002 and the beginning of 2007.

While observing that since 2002 the number of sentences imposed continues to be quite modest, the Committee notes the efforts made by the Government, and acknowledged by the trade union organizations, to further the investigation of abuses of the human rights of trade unionists. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to continue to take the measures within its reach to secure progress in investigations into acts of violence against the trade union movement. It expresses the firm hope that the measures adopted recently in connection with the appointment of new prosecutors and judges will lead to an improvement in combating the impunity situation and shed light on the acts of violence against trade union leaders and members, and enable the perpetrators to be captured.

In previous comments the Committee asked the Government to keep it informed of the manner in which Act No. 975 on Justice and Peace is applied, particularly in cases involving trade union leaders and members. The Committee notes in this connection that the Constitutional Court reached a decision on the challenges to the Act: it declared the Act enforceable but ruled that some of its provisions were unconstitutional and unenforceable. Observing that the Government has not sent the information requested, the Committee repeats its request.

Practical and legislative matters pending

The Committee has been commenting, in some instances for many years, on the following matters:

–           various types of contractual arrangements, such as associated work cooperatives and service, civil or commercial contacts which are a cover for actual employment relationships and are used to carry out functions and work that are within the normal activities of the establishment, and under which workers may not form or join trade unions. The Committee notes the Government’s response to the effect that: (a) Decree No. 4588 of 2006 has been issued and provides that cooperatives may not be used as a means of labour intermediation and that where they are used improperly, simulating activities of temporary service enterprises, this denies workers the guarantees of the Labour Code, and that Circular No. 0036 of 2007 determines the scope of the abovementioned Decree; (b) the Supervisory Authority for Economic Solidarity investigates and sanctions any departure from the social purpose of associated work cooperatives, while the Ministry of Social Welfare determines when there shall be labour intermediation and when there is non-compliance with comprehensive social security standards; and (c) the Special Unit for the Inspection, Monitoring and Control of Labour carried out 1,067 visits to associated work cooperatives, and 961 investigations were opened as a result of which penalties were imposed on 118 associated work cooperatives found to have been misused for the purpose of labour intermediation. The Committee points out that Article 2 of the Convention provides that workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. The Committee reiterates that when workers in cooperatives or those covered by other types of civil or commercial contracts have to perform work within the normal activities of the establishment in the context of a relationship of subordination, they should be treated as employees in a real employment relationship and should therefore enjoy the right to join trade unions. Consequently, the Committee once again asks the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that full effect is given to Article 2 of the Convention so that all workers without distinction whatsoever enjoy the right to establish and join organizations.

–           The arbitrary refusal to register new trade union organizations, new trade union rules or the executive committee of a trade union at the discretion of the authorities for reasons that go beyond the express provision of the legislation. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that a resolution has been issued (No. 1651 of 2007) amending sections 2, 3 and 5 of resolution No. 1875 of 2002 in order to speed up the procedure for entering trade union organizations in the register. The Committee observes that one of the grounds for denying registration set out in Decree No. 1651 of 2007 is “that the trade union organization has been established not to guarantee the fundamental right of association but to secure labour stability”. The Committee reminds the Government that Article 2 of the Convention, guarantees the right of workers and employers to establish organizations “without previous authorization” from the public authorities and that regulations governing the constitution of organizations are not in themselves incompatible with the provisions of the Convention provided that they are not equivalent to a requirement for previous authorization and do not constitute such an obstacle that they amount in practice to a prohibition (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 68 and 69). The Committee further considers that the administrative authority should not be able to deny registration of an organization merely because it considers that it might devote itself to activities that go beyond normal trade union activities or that it might not be able to fulfil its functions. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take steps to amend this provision of Decree No. 1651 of 2007 and to make sure that the administrative authority does not have discretionary powers that are inconsistent with Article 2 of the Convention and that it registers new organizations or executive committees, as well as amendments to rules, without undue delay.

–           The prohibition on the calling of strikes by federations and confederations (section 417(i) of the Labour Code). The Committee repeats once again that higher-level organizations ought to be able to resort to strikes in the event of disagreement with the Government’s economic and social policy. The Committee requests the Government to take steps to amend section 417(i) of the Labour Code.

–           The prohibition of strikes, not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in a very broad range of services which are not necessarily essential (section 430(b) as it pertains to transport, (d), (f), (g) and (h); section 450(1)(a) of the Labour Code and Decrees Nos 414 and 437 of 1952; 1543 of 1955; 1593 of 1959; 1167 of 1963; 57 and 534 of 1967) and the possibility to dismiss trade union leaders who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (section 450(2) of the Labour Code), even when the unlawful nature of the strike is a result of requirements that are contrary to the principles of association. The Committee notes that the Government acknowledges that section 430 is not consistent with the provisions of the Convention and states that the Ministry has seldom declared strikes to be unlawful and that such decisions are reviewed by the State Council. Moreover, the Committee notes with interest that the Government has transmitted a copy of a draft law submitted to Congress, providing that the illegality of a suspension or of a collective agreement will be decided by a labour court judge. Mindful that the Government acknowledges the need to amend some of these provisions and that it had presented a draft law to Congress providing for several amendments to the Labour Code, the Committee asks it to take the necessary steps to avail itself of the fact of the draft law’s presentation to Congress to amend all the legal provisions on which it has commented, and invites it to seek technical assistance from the Office.

–           The authority of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike exceeds a certain period – 60 days – (section 448(4) of the Labour Code). The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indications of the submission to Congress of a draft law that amends this section, providing that the parties may agree to a conciliation mechanism or arbitration to resolve their dispute, as well as the fact of the intervention of the subcommittee of the committee of consultation on wage policy and labour. However, the Committee notes that the draft law provides that if a definitive solution cannot be found, both or one of the parties may petition the Ministry of Social Welfare to convene an arbitration tribunal. The Committee reiterates that compulsory arbitration to end a strike, except when at the request of both parties, is acceptable only in instances where the strike may be restricted, or even prohibited, i.e. in disputes in the public service involving public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to amend this principle in keeping with the principle noted above.

Observing that it has been making comments for many years, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary steps without delay to amend the legislative provisions so as to align them with the Convention. The Committee further hopes that the high-level mission undertaken in November 2007 will be useful in assisting the Government in its efforts to comply with the Convention. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.

The Committee is addressing a request on other matters directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Tripartite Agreement for the Right of Association and Democracy concluded by the Government and the representatives of employers and workers in Geneva in the context of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, on 1 June 2006. The Committee notes the Government’s observations in reply to the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), dated 31 August and 7 September 2005, and the Single Confederation of Workers (CUT), the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) of 7 and 14 June, 31 August and 7 September 2005, which refer to issues already raised by the Committee in its 2005 observation.

The Committee also notes the reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the various cases under examination concerning Colombia, adopted at its sessions in March, June and November 2006. In particular, the Committee notes Case No. 1787, relating to acts of violence against trade union officials and members, which include murders, kidnappings, attempted murders, disappearances and the situation of impunity affecting the country.

The Committee further notes the comments of the ICFTU of 10 August 2006, and the joint comments of the CUT, CGT, CTC and the Confederation of Pensioners of Colombia (CPC), of 16 June 2006, referring to pending issues relating to the legislation and the application of the Convention in practice which are under examination, and particularly to acts of violence against trade union leaders and members, and the grave situation of impunity. In this respect, the ICFTU indicates that in 2005 there were 70 murders, 260 death threats, 56 cases of arbitrary detention, seven attempted murders, three disappearances and eight forced relocations. The Committee recalls the interdependence between civil liberties and trade union rights and emphasizes that a truly free and independent trade union movement can only develop in a climate of respect for fundamental human rights (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph. 26) and that employers’ and workers’ organizations can only exercise their activities freely and meaningfully in a climate that is free from violence. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this respect.

Finally, in relation to the comments of the Union of Maritime and Inland Water Transport Industry Workers (UNIMAR), of 30 May 2006, relating to a situation where a company has been liquidated in disregard of the trade union immunity of trade union leaders, the Committee requests the organizations concerned and the Government to examine the possibility of finding a solution to the dispute in the context of the recently concluded Tripartite Agreement, which includes a commitment to convene the National Commission on Wages and Labour Policies.

The Committee proposes, in accordance with the regular reporting cycle, to examine at its next session in November-December 2007 all the matters relating to the legislation and the application of the Convention in practice raised in its previous observation in 2005 (see 2005 observation, 76th Session).

The Committee hopes that the recently adopted Tripartite Agreement will be implemented in the near future and that, in the context of this Agreement, serious problems in respect of the freedom of association which the Committee has been raising for numerous years will be examined.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the recent application of sections 482 to 484 of the Substantive Labour Code respecting trade union contracts. The Committee notes that trade union contracts consist of contracts concluded by one or more unions of workers with one or more (employers) or employers’ organizations for the provision of services or the execution of a task by their members. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 483, “the workers’ trade union which has concluded a trade union contract shall be responsible both for the direct obligations arising out of the contract and for compliance with those established for its members, except in cases of the simple suspension of the contract, as envisaged by the law or the agreement, and shall have the legal personality to exercise both the rights and actions which correspond to it directly, as well as those which correspond to each of its members. For these effects and purposes, each of the parties to the contract shall constitute a sufficient security; if such is not constituted, it shall be understood that the assets of each party to the contract shall cover the respective obligations.” The comments made by the trade union organizations show their opposition to the application of this contractual arrangement. The Committee notes that the High-Level Tripartite Visit had the opportunity to visit an enterprise in which a trade union contract was in operation, which gave rise to many questions and led it to consider that an in-depth investigation of the subject was necessary. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the application in practice of trade union contracts (their purposes and the related responsibilities) and on the number of such contracts concluded, and to provide copies of some of them as examples.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It also notes the discussions in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in 2005, during which it was decided that a high-level tripartite visit would be undertaken on the prior invitation of the Government of Colombia to the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. The Committee notes the report of the high-level tripartite visit and the reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the various cases under examination relating to Colombia, as adopted at its sessions in March, June and November 2005.

The Committee also notes the comments on the application of the Convention made by the Single Confederation of Workers (CUT), the General Confederation of Democratic Workers (CGTD), the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) and the Confederation of Pensioners of Colombia (CPC) in communications dated 7 and 14 June and 2 and 7 September 2005. The CTC also sent a communication dated 31 August 2005. The Union of Workers of the Electricity Company of Colombia (SINTRELECOL) sent its comments in a communication on 20 September 2005 and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication dated 31 August 2005. The World Confederation of Labour (WCL) and the ICFTU made joint comments in a communication on 30 August 2005.

The Committee observes that the above organizations refer to acts of violence against trade union leaders and trade unionists which include murders, kidnappings, attempted assassinations and disappearances, and to the grave impunity which surrounds such acts. They also refer to the use of various types of contractual arrangements, such as associated work cooperatives and service, civil or commercial contracts to carry out functions and work that are within the normal activities of the establishment and which result in it being impossible for the workers to establish or join trade unions. They also refer to the restructuring of public bodies, which are then closed down so as to be re-established without a trade union. The organizations further describe the arbitrary refusal to register new trade union organizations or new rules or the executive committee of a trade union; the acceptance of challenges by employers against the registration of new unions; and the prohibition of the right to strike in certain services which are not essential services.

The Committee notes that, with regard to acts of violence against the leaders and members of trade union organizations, the Government indicates that it has made great budgetary, organizational and human efforts to confront the armed groups operating outside the law and to restore democratic security, the control of the national territory and the presence of state social institutions. Furthermore, on 25 July 2005, Act No. 975 on Justice and Peace was adopted, which contains provisions to facilitate the reintegration of the members of illegal armed groups into civil life. The Government adds that the National Security and Citizens’ Coexistence Fund was established by Decree No. 21870, of 7 July 2004, thereby demonstrating the priority given by the Government to the issue of security. Furthermore, the Commission for the Regulation and Evaluation of Risks (CRER) of the Programme for the Protection of Witnesses and Persons under Threat, under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice, provided protection in 2004 to 163 trade union organizations and 1,615 trade unionists. The security measures adopted include the reinforcement of buildings, armoured vehicles, telephone tapping, the provision of arms and bullet-proof jackets, as well as cell phones and air tickets. The Government emphasizes that 54.9 per cent of the protection provided is granted to trade unions.

With regard to the murder of trade unionists, the Government provides information on the establishment of an investigation unit within the Office of the Attorney-General devoted exclusively to the investigation of violations of the human rights of trade unionists. The Government provides comparative tables showing the decline in the number of such murders in 2005 and indicates that the Office of the Attorney-General is making progress in the investigations that are being carried out, although some of them are being hindered by the methods used by illegal armed groups. The Government indicates that teaching is the sector most affected by the murder of trade unionists. It provides statistics on the murders of trade unionists from 2000 to 2005 by sector and on the investigations being carried out by the various sections of the Office of the Attorney-General. In relation to murders of trade unionists, the Government indicates that six cases were recorded during the period January-June 2005, compared with 27 cases over the same period the previous year, amounting to a reduction of 78 per cent. These figures do not take into account unionized teachers, in relation to whom the figure of 31 murders during the period January-June 2004 fell to 18 over the same period in 2005, corresponding to a decline of 42 per cent.

In relation to the investigations that are being carried out, the statistics provided show that there are 313 investigations, of which 267 are in the preliminary stage, 32 are under examination and 14 are before the courts. The Government also provides the list of all the investigations carried out between 2002 and 2004 and, in which: sentences of preventive detention were applied in 36 cases, charges were brought in 21 cases and convictions were obtained in four cases, while in 131 cases further investigation was ordered, in five cases the completion of the investigation was ordered either by bringing charges or closing the case, in 99 cases the investigation was shelved for lack of evidence, in 19 cases the investigation was suspended and in two the case was dismissed. The Government indicates that the reasons which led to the provisional shelving of investigations for lack of evidence or the suspension of the investigation included: difficulties in protecting witnesses and their refusal to testify, lack of collaboration by the population, difficulties experienced by investigators in reaching the scene of the crime, difficulties in the identification of members of armed groups, such as paramilitary groups and guerrillas, and the absence of witnesses. The Government also refers to the new penal system for bringing charges which entered into force in January 2005 under which the functions of the Office of the Attorney-General are confined to investigation and it no longer exercises jurisdictional responsibility. Furthermore, under the new system, all the procedures are oral. The Government expresses the view that all of these measures will help to ease the congestion of the judicial system and accelerate the administration of justice.

Taking into account the Government’s report and the conclusions of the high-level tripartite visit, the Committee notes with interest the efforts made by the Government to bring to an end the serious armed conflict which has been affecting the country for decades and in which various illegal armed groups are active. The Committee requests the Government to continue taking all the measures available to it, taking due account of the need to respect fundamental human rights and the rule of law in order to achieve the total elimination of impunity.

With particular reference to acts of violence against trade union leaders and members, the Committee notes the efforts made to increase the security of citizens in general, and of trade union leaders and members in particular, through specific programmes, such as the establishment of the Commission for the Regulation and Evaluation of Risks and the National Security and Citizens’ Coexistence Fund, and that 54.9 per cent of the funds devoted to protection are allocated for trade unions. The Committee also notes the statements that no effort will be spared to achieve the complete elimination of murders, particularly of trade union leaders. However, the Committee regrets to note that, although the murder rate has declined, the trade union movement in Colombia continues to be confronted by a situation of grave violence, and that murders of trade union leaders and members continue and that their security is permanently under threat, as illustrated by the high level of protection provided to trade unionists, which is considerably higher than that afforded to other sectors of the population. The Committee recalls the interdependence of civil liberties and trade union rights and its conviction that a truly free and independent trade union movement can only develop in a climate of respect for fundamental human rights (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 26) and that organizations of workers and employers can only exercise their activities freely and meaningfully in a climate that is free from violence. The Committee once again urges the Government to continue taking all the necessary measures to guarantee the right to life and security, so as to permit the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Convention.

In relation to the situation of impunity, and particularly with regard to investigations into acts of violence, including murders, kidnappings, disappearances, attempted assassinations and threats against trade union leaders and members, the Committee notes the efforts made by the Government in general, and by the Office of the Attorney-General in particular, to reduce the level of violence and the adoption of a new system for bringing penal charges which, according to the Government, will relieve the congestion in the judicial system and accelerate the administration of justice. The Committee notes with interest the recent establishment of an investigation unit within the Office of the Attorney-General devoted exclusively to the investigation of violations of the human rights of trade unionists. Nevertheless, the Committee observes once again that impunity continues to prevail. Indeed, while taking into account the obstacles to the proper administration of justice, the identification of those responsible and their prosecution reported by the Government, the Committee is bound to note that during the period between 2002 and 2004 convictions have only been achieved in four cases as a result of the investigations carried out, while the great majority of the remaining investigations have been shelved for lack of evidence. Under these conditions, the Committee strongly urges the Government to continue making the most determined efforts to investigate all acts of violence committed against trade union leaders and members, to elucidate the circumstances in which they were committed and to identify those responsible so that they can be duly punished with a view to bringing an end to the very grave situation of impunity.

In particular, the Committee notes the recent adoption of Act No. 975 on Justice and Peace, which contains measures to facilitate the reintegration of members of illegal armed groups into civil life. The Committee notes that, according to the report of the high-level tripartite visit, the Act has been the subject of various challenges in the Constitutional Court, which has not yet ruled on them. The Committee also notes that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia has criticized various aspects of the Act as an instrument of transitional justice intended to achieve lasting peace which, on the one hand, should offer incentives to unlawful armed groups to demobilize and end hostilities and, on the other, should adequately guarantee the rights of the victims of the atrocious crimes committed by the members of these groups. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Act will be applied taking into account the criteria indicated by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights so as to guarantee in an appropriate manner the proper administration of justice and the just compensation of the victims of violent acts with a view to the complete eradication of impunity. The Committee requests that the Government keep it informed of the outcome of the challenges brought in the Constitutional Court and the manner in which the Act is applied, particularly with regard to cases relating to trade union leaders and members.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that, in addition to the report of the high-level tripartite visit, the comments made by the trade union organizations also relate to other matters:

Article 2

- The use of various contractual arrangements, such as associated work cooperatives and service, civil or commercial contracts to cover what are in practice employment relationships which are used to carry out functions or work within the normal activities of the establishment and under which workers are not allowed to establish or join trade unions. The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain observations on this subject and that the high-level tripartite visit had the opportunity to receive information in this connection from employers’ and workers’ organizations and the Government. Both the employers and the Government acknowledged the existence of abuses in the use of these contracts and indicated that, with particular reference to cooperatives, Congress is currently examining a Bill to supervise their proper use and to prohibit cooperatives from acting as intermediaries or temporary work agencies. The Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention provides that workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish (...) and to join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee considers that when workers in cooperatives or those covered by other types of civil or commercial contracts have to perform work within the normal activities of the establishment in the context of a relationship of subordination, they should be considered as employees in a real employment relationship and should therefore enjoy the right to join trade unions. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that full effect is given to Article 2 of the Convention so that all workers without distinction whatsoever enjoy the right to establish and join organizations.

- The restructuring of public establishments involving the massive dismissal of workers, including trade union leaders, and in some cases the closure of such establishments, which are then re-established as a different entity and contracts accorded to former workers who were not unionized or on condition that they give up union membership, and where it is no longer possible for a trade union to exist. The Committee observes that the Government refers to certain specific cases of restructuring and states that they corresponded to a need for rationalization and were not undertaken for anti-trade union purposes. The Committee reiterates the principles set forth in the previous paragraph and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that workers can exercise their trade union rights freely during any restructuring process and in the new restructured establishments.

- The arbitrary refusal to register new trade union organizations, new trade union rules or the executive committee of a trade union at the discretion of the authorities for reasons which go beyond the explicit provisions of the legislation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the legislation in force has been strictly complied with and that it provides statistics on the number of trade union organizations registered and the number of applications for registration refused. The Committee notes that these statistics show that a high number of applications for registration, both for new trade union organizations, and for changes to their rules or new executive committees, are rejected. The Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention guarantees the right of workers and employers to establish organizations “without previous authorization” by the public authorities and that national regulations governing the constitution of organizations are not in themselves incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, provided that they are not equivalent to a requirement for “previous authorization”, nor constitute such an obstacle that they amount in practice to a prohibition (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 68 and 69). In this connection, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the registration of trade unions is only refused in those cases explicitly envisaged by the legislation and that the registration authority does not use its discretion to refuse such applications, so as to give effect to the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention.

Article 3

-  The prohibition on the calling of strikes by federations and confederations (section 417(i) of the Labour Code). In this respect, the Committee reiterates that higher-level organizations should be able to call a strike in the case of disagreement with the Government’s economic and social policy. It requests the Government to take measures to amend section 417(i) of the Labour Code.

- The prohibition of strikes, not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in a very broad range of services which are not necessarily essential (section 450(1)(a) of the Labour Code and Decrees Nos. 414 and 437 of 1952; 1543 of 1955; 1593 of 1959; 1167 of 1963; 57 and 534 of 1967) and the possibility to dismiss trade union leaders who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (section 450(2) of the Labour Code), even where the unlawful nature of the strike is a result of requirements that are contrary to the principles of freedom of association. The Committee once again requests the Government to take measures to amend the legislative provisions referred to above and to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted in this respect.

- The authority of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike exceeds a certain period (section 448(4) of the Labour Code). The Committee reiterates its previous comment that the use of compulsory arbitration to bring an end to a strike is only acceptable when it has been requested by the two parties involved in the dispute or in cases in which the strike may be restricted or even prohibited, that is in cases of disputes in the public service involving public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Under these conditions, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to repeal this provision of the Labour Code and to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted in this respect.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on another point.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. The Committee also notes the discussions in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in 2004. Furthermore, the Committee notes the reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the various current cases relating to Colombia adopted by the Governing Body at its sessions in March, June and November 2004.

The Committee further notes the comments on the application of the Convention made by the Single Confederation of Workers (CUT), the General Confederation of Democratic Workers (CGTD) and the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) in a communication of 1 June 2004 and by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication of 23 July 2004.

In the first place, the Committee observes that the above organizations refer to numerous acts of violence against trade union leaders and trade unionists (the ICFTU reports 20 murders of trade union leaders or trade unionists between January and April 2004, death threats against leaders of the ANTHOC, ASEDAR, SINTRAMUNICIPIO, SINALTRAINAL (Barranquilla, Palmira and Cali branches), SINTRAEMCALI and SINTRAMINERCOL trade union oganizations, the break-in at the premises of the Rural Workers’ Association of Arauca, the attempted murder with firearms of a leader of the SINTRAMETAL trade union organization, Yumbo branch, and the kidnapping of the Vice-President of the Association of Departmental Employees (ADEA); the trade union federations, CUT, CGTD and CTC, and the ICFTU refer to the issue of the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of acts of violence against trade union leaders and trade unionists in 95 per cent of cases and recall that social protest is subject to various forms of repression.

In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government provides information on Case No. 1787, which is currently before the Committee on Freedom of Association and relates to the murders of trade unionists and trade union leaders, presumably for their involvement in trade union activities. The Government also indicates that some of them were not murdered as a result of their trade union activities. The Government adds that regional agreements have been concluded (in Valle del Cauca, Valledupar, Bucaramanga, Arauca, Barrancabermeja, Barranquilla, Medellín and Risaralda) relating to the subjects of prevention, protection, guarantees for freedom of association and measures to combat impunity, and that protective measures have also been taken (for example, the provision of national permits so that those under threat can leave the area concerned) for leaders and/or the provision of armouring for the premises of the ANTHOC, SINALTRAINAL and SINTRAMINERCOL trade union organizations.

The Committee notes with grave concern the persistent climate of violence in the country and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1787 in November 2004, and of the Committee on the Application of Standards, citing further murders and other acts of violence. As emphasized in the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards, the Committee of Experts recalls that workers’ and employees’ organizations can only exercise their activities freely and effectively in a climate free of violence and it once again urges the Government to guarantee the right to life and security, and to reinforce urgently the necessary institutions in order to put an end to the situation of impunity, which is a serious obstacle to the exercise of the trade union rights guaranteed by the Convention. The Committee notes that the climate prevailing in the country is not favourable to the exercise and development of trade union activities more generally.

The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for many years on certain provisions of the law concerning:

-  The prohibition on the calling of strikes by federations and confederations (section 417(i) of the Labour Code).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the legislation has followed for a long time the tendency espoused by many other legislations to strengthen trade unionism at the enterprise level and that this is the outcome of the conviction that this approach is most suited to the purposes of strengthening the trade union movement and collective bargaining and that focusing on these organizations is not contrary to the Convention; (ii) the legislator intended that the provision of special protection and the strengthening of the lower levels of the trade union movement were not an obstacle to the promotion of trade unionism at the level of federations and confederations, as illustrated by the fact that the law has afforded such federations and confederations all the same attributes as those accorded to enterprise trade unions; and (iii) this situation, to which the sole exception is the calling of strikes, has resulted in strong federations and confederations which are sufficiently representative of workers’ rights. In this respect, the Committee considers that higher level organizations should be able to have recourse to strike action in cases of disagreement with the Government’s social and economic policies. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take measures to amend section 417(i) of the Labour Code.

-  The prohibition on strikes, not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in a wide range of services which are not necessarily essential (section 450(1)(a) of the Labour Code and Decrees Nos. 414 and 437 of 1952, 1543 of 1955, 1593 of 1959, 1167 of 1963, 57 and 534 of 1967) and the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (section 450(2) of the Labour Code), even where the unlawfulness of the strike rests on requirements which are contrary to the principles of freedom of association.

In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (1) in Colombia the concept of public services is understood as those provided by the State directly or through private entities to address the needs of the population and in which the general interest is implicit; (2) the legislator, based on the criterion of general interest, indicated in the Labour Code some of the activities which, in view of the situation of Colombia, give expression to and encompass the general interest; (3) none of the Conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining explicitly refer to the right to strike, and even less to the concept of essential services; and (4) the Political Constitution of 1991 was intended to take up the ILO concept of essential services as merged with the Colombian legal tradition, for which reason Article 53 refers to essential public services with a view to prohibiting the right to strike in them; according to the Government, this is a concept which cannot be divorced from its origin, which goes well beyond labour matters.

In this regard, the Committee recalls that in its General Survey of 1994 it indicated that, under Article 3, paragraph 1, of Convention No. 87, "the right to organize activities and to formulate programmes is recognized for workers’ and employers’ organizations. In the view of the Committee, strike action is part of these activities under the provisions of Article 3; it is a collective right exercised, in the case of workers, by a group of persons who decide not to work in order to have their demands met. The right to strike is therefore considered as an activity of workers’ organizations within the meaning of Article 3" and "in the light of the above, the Committee confirms its basic position that the right to strike is an intrinsic corollary of the right to organize protected by Convention No. 87" (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 149 and 151). With regard to services considered to be essential in which the right to strike may be limited or even prohibited, the Committee emphasized that "the principle whereby the right to strike may be limited or even prohibited in essential services would lose all meaning if national legislation defined these services in too broad a manner. As an exception to the general principle of the right to strike, the essential services in which this principle may be entirely or partly waived should be defined restrictively: the Committee therefore considers that essential services are only those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health or the whole or part of the population" (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 159). In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to amend the legislative provisions in question and to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted in this respect.

-  The authority of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike exceeds a certain period (section 448(4) of the Labour Code).

In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s confirmation that the legislation permits the Minister to adopt this measure, but that it is necessary to take into account that: (1) in practice, it is a provision which can be said to have been used on very few occasions in the labour history of the country; (2) the provision sets out, not an obligation for the Minister, but a faculty, and in the event that the Minister chooses to give effect to this provision, the measure adopted by the will of the administration can be appealed through the courts; and (3) the fact that the Minister may submit the dispute to arbitration does not mean that workers are denied recourse to the court of arbitration. The Committee considers that the use of compulsory arbitration to bring an end to a strike is only acceptable when it has been requested by the two parties involved in the dispute or in cases in which the strike may be restricted or even prohibited, that is in cases of dispute within the public service involving public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. In these conditions, and taking into account the Government’s indication that this ministerial power is little used in practice, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to repeal this provision of the Labour Code and to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted in this respect.

Finally, the Committee recalls that in its previous observation it noted that the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) had sent comments on the application of the Convention referring to the legislative matters raised by the Committee and the situation of violence in the country, which means that the exercise of freedom of association involves great risk. With regard to these matters, the Committee refers to the comments made above in the present observation. The WCL also indicates that: (1) the official responsible for registering trade unions is competent to make comments and has been granted the power to oppose registration; and (2) employers are permitted to oppose the registration of a trade union organization or to impugn the election of a new trade union board. With regard to the registration of trade unions, the Committee notes that, notwithstanding this power to oppose registration, the Government has indicated that there is no difficulty in the establishment of trade union organizations and that the registration of a trade union organization is an administrative act which can be appealed through the courts. The Committee recalls that problems of compatibility with the Convention also arise where the registration procedure is long and complicated or when registration regulations are applied in a manner inconsistent with their purpose and the competent administrative authorities make excessive use of their discretionary powers (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 75). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide further information on the practical application of the registration procedure and, in particular, the number of cases where registration has been denied, the reasons for such refusal, whether the refusal was appealed and the final outcome of the appeal. It further asks the Government to provide comments with its next report on the other observations made by the WCL.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. It notes with regret, however, that the report contains no observations on the comments submitted in September 2002 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC). The Committee also notes the discussions that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. The Committee also takes note of the reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association on a number of cases pending that concern Colombia, adopted at its meetings of March, June and November 2003.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government, on 15 January 2003 the Work Plan of the Inter-Institutional Committee for the Prevention and Protection of the Human Rights of Workers was adopted and that its main objective is to promote, encourage and adopt all such measures as may strengthen freedom of association. The Government also states that the special committee to promote investigations into human rights violations is to be strengthened. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the number of murders of trade union leaders and members has dropped in recent months. The Committee nonetheless observes with deep concern the persistent climate of violence in the country and the conclusions of May 2003 of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1787 and those of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards citing new murders and other acts of violence. The Committee echoes the two abovementioned bodies in requesting the Government to strengthen the relevant institutions still further in order to put an end to the intolerable situation of impunity, which constitutes a serious obstacle to the free exercise of the trade union rights protected by the Convention, so as to punish all those responsible effectively.

The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for many years on certain provisions of the law that concern:

-  the prohibition on the calling of strikes by federations and confederations (section 417(i) of the Labour Code);

-  the prohibition on strikes not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term (namely, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) but also in a wide range of services which are not necessarily essential (section 450(1)(a) of the Labour Code and Decrees Nos. 414 and 437 of 1952; 1543 of 1955; 1593 of 1959; 1167 of 1963; 57 and 534 of 1967) and the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (section 450(2) of the Labour Code), even when the unlawfulness of the strike rests on requirements which are contrary to the principles of freedom of association; and

-  the authority of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike exceeds a certain period (section 448(4) of the Labour Code).

The Committee notes with regret that the Government reports only that work on proposals for labour reform has not yet begun. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made by the Consultative Commission on Labour and Social Policies, which, according to information supplied by the Government to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards at its meeting of 2002, had been seized of issues pertaining to the application of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take steps to have the legislation amended without delay and recalls in this connection the preliminary draft legislation prepared during the direct contacts mission in February 2000. The Committee requests the Government to send a detailed report so that the Committee of Experts may review the situation at its next session.

Lastly, the Committee notes that the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) has sent comments on the application of the Convention. It requests the Government to send its observations on them.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the discussions that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards at the 2002 session of the Conference. The Committee also notes the reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the various cases pending that concern Colombia adopted at its meetings of March, June and November 2002.

The Committee once again notes with grave concern the climate of violence in the country and particularly the conclusions that the Committee on Freedom of Association formulated in Case No. 1787 in November 2002. In those conclusions the above committee noted that for the year 2002 there have been "a total of 83 murders" and that the Committee is bound once again to regret the fact that, despite the various bodies that have been established and the investigations conducted by those bodies, and even in some cases the arrests of suspects, the Government has not thus far reported any actual convictions of individuals for the murders of trade unionists (see 329th Report, paragraphs 378 and 379). Like the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary steps to end this situation of insecurity and allow workers’ and employers’ organizations to enjoy in full the rights granted to them by the Convention, and to establish and strengthen the institutions needed to put an end to the intolerable situation of impunity prevailing in the country, which is a serious obstacle to the free exercise of trade union rights.

The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for many years on certain provisions of the legislation, namely:

-  the prohibition on the calling of strikes by federations and confederations (section 417(i) of the Labour Code);

-  the prohibition on strikes not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term (namely, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) but also in a wide range of services which are not necessarily essential (section 450(1)(a) of the Labour Code and Decrees Nos. 414 and 437 of 1952; 1543 of 1955; 1593 of 1959; 1167 of 1963; 57 and 534 of 1967) and the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (section 450(2) of the Labour Code), even when the unlawfulness of the strike rests on requirements which are contrary to the principles of freedom of association; and

-  the power of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike lasts longer than a specified period (section 448(4) of the Labour Code).

The Committee regrets to note in this connection that in its report the Government merely states that there have been no changes in the legislation. The Committee recalls that during its examination of the application of the Convention at its meeting of June 2002, the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards observed that the Government had stated that questions concerning the application of the Convention had been placed before the Consultative Commission on Social and Labour Policies. In this context, the Conference Committee asked the Government to send a detailed report so that the Committee of Experts could examine the situation again at its next meeting. The Committee accordingly urges the Government to take steps to bring its legislation into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention, for instance by adopting the preliminary draft legislation prepared during the direct contacts mission in February 2000.

Lastly, the Committee notes that the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the Colombian Workers’ Confederation (CTC) have sent comments on the application of the Convention, and asks the Government to send its observations thereon.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the debate which took place in the 2001 Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. The Committee also notes the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the various pending cases which relate to Colombia, adopted at its March 2001 meeting.

First, the Committee notes again with very deep concern the climate of violence which exists in the country and, in particular, the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1787 in which it is stated that between the direct contacts mission in February 2000 and October 2000, more than 100 murders of trade union officials and members were reported and "the Committee [on Freedom of Association] deeply regrets that, once again, it must observe that in most of the cases of murder, murder attempts or disappearances of trade union officials and members, those responsible have not been arrested and punished" (see 324th Report of the Committee, paragraphs 272 and 274). In this regard, the Committee emphasizes once again that the guarantees set out in the international labour Conventions, in particular those relating to freedom of association, can only be effective if the civil and political rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments are genuinely recognized and protected (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 43).

The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for many years on certain legislative provisions, specifically in relation to:

-  the prohibition of federations and confederations from calling strikes (section 417(i) of the Labour Code);

-  the prohibition of strikes, not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term (namely the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) but also in a wide range of services which are not necessarily essential (section 450(1)(a) of the Labour Code and Decrees Nos. 414 and 437 of 1952, 1543 of 1955, 1593 of 1959, 1167 of 1963, 57 and 534 of 1967) and the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (section 450(2) of the Labour Code), including when the strike is unlawful due to requirements which are contrary to the principles of freedom of association; and

-  the power of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike lasts longer than a specific period (section 448(4) of the Labour Code).

In this regard, the Committee recalls that in its previous observation it noted that during the direct contacts mission carried out in February 2000, draft legislative texts were prepared which were designed to amend the abovementioned provisions and that the Government undertook to submit these draft texts to the social partners and subsequently to Congress. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (1) the subjects related to labour legislation and the development of section 53 of the political charter are part of the tripartite agreement for social dialogue which was concluded on 14 August 2000 between the Colombian Government, the workers’ and pensioners’ central associations and the trade unions; (2) the abovementioned draft laws were tabled at various meetings in September and October 2000; and (3) since no agreement was reached on the subjects in question, it was deemed appropriate for them to be placed before the consultative commission on salary and labour policies for consideration. In these circumstances, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the draft laws in question will be placed before Congress in the very near future and that the abovementioned draft legislation will be adopted. The Committee requests that the Government keep it informed of the progress made in this respect in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the discussions in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2000. The Committee also notes the report of the direct contacts mission which visited the country in February 2000 and the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association on the various cases pending concerning Colombia, which was  adopted by the Governing Body at its session in May-June 2000.

In the first place, the Committee notes with deep concern the climate of violence which exists in the country and, in particular, the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1787 in which it is stated that "the scale of murders, kidnappings, death threats and other violent acts against trade union officials and members is unprecedented in history" (see 322nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paragraph 24). Furthermore, the Committee notes from the report of the direct contacts mission that "in general the status of trade union leader is a fundamental factor in these assassinations" (see 322nd Report, Annex, paragraph 4 of the conclusions). In this respect, the Committee of Experts considers that the guarantees set out in international labour Conventions, in particular those relating to freedom of association, can only be effective if the civil and political rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments are genuinely recognized and protected (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 43).

The Committee notes the observations made by the Union of Maritime Transport Industry Workers (UNIMAR) indicating that the merchant marine, the Grandcolombiana Federation of coffee producers and maritime transport do not pay the trade union dues which have been checked off, dismiss trade union leaders and withhold their wages, dismiss workers who attend trade union meetings and block trade union funds, and the Committee requests the Government to make its comments in this respect. The Committee also notes the observations made to the direct contacts mission by the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT), the General Confederation of Democratic Workers (CGTD) and the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) objecting to certain provisions in the Labour Code.

The Committee notes with satisfaction the adoption of Act No. 584 of 13 June 2000 which repeals or amends the following provisions upon which the Committee has been commenting for many years:

-  section 365(g) of the Labour Code on the requirement, for a trade union to be registered, that the labour inspector must certify that there is no other union (repealed);

-  section 380(3) of the Labour Code, which provides that "any member of a trade union executive who has been responsible for the dissolution of a union as a sanction may be denied the right of trade union association in any form for up to three years (...)" (repealed);

-  section 384 of the Labour Code on the requirement that, in order to form a union, two-thirds of its members must be Colombian (repealed);

-  section 388(1)(a) of the Labour Code on the need to be of Colombian nationality to hold executive office in a trade union (amended; the new wording provides that "in no case may the executive board be composed in its majority of non-nationals");

-  section 388(1)(c) of the Labour Code on the requirement to have normally exercised the activity, trade or position covered by the trade union in order to be a trade union official and section 388(1)(f) which provides that a person must not have been given a serious sentence, unless he or she has been rehabilitated, nor sued for ordinary offences at the time of election (amended to leave it to the trade union organization to determine in its rules the requirements, in addition to membership of the trade union, for membership of the executive of a trade union);

-  section 422(1)(c) of the Labour Code on the need to have exercised the activity, occupation or position covered by the trade union in order to hold office in a federation or confederation and section 422(1)(f) which provides that a person must not have been given a serious sentence, unless he or she has been rehabilitated, nor sued for ordinary offences at the time of election (amended to leave it to the trade union organization to determine in its rules the requirements, in addition to active membership of the trade union, federation or confederation, for holding executive office in a federation or confederation);

-  section 432(2) of the Labour Code on the need to be of Colombian nationality in order to be a member of a delegation submitting the list of claims made to an employer (amended to remove the requirement of being Colombian);

-  section 444, last subsection, of the Labour Code on the presence of the authorities at general assemblies convened to vote on referral to arbitration or the calling of a strike (amended to leave it to the trade union organization to determine whether or not the labour authorities should be present);

-  section 448(3) of the Labour Code, which provides that "when a strike is called, the Minister of Labour and Social Security, ex officio or at the request of the trade union or trade unions representing the majority of workers at the enterprise, or if not, of the workers gathered at a general meeting, may (once a strike is called) submit to a ballot by all workers in the enterprise whether they wish to submit the outstanding matters under dispute to arbitration" (amended to remove the possibility of the Minister of Labour and Social Security being able to submit automatically to a ballot by the workers of the enterprise the question of the submission of the dispute to an arbitration tribunal); and

-  section 486 on the control of the internal management of trade unions and union meetings by officials, which permitted officials of the Ministry of Labour to call before them trade union leaders or members to require them to provide relevant information on their work, and to present books, registers, plans and other documents and obtain copies of or extracts from the latter (amended; the authorities of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security may exercise these powers provided that they have received a request from the trade union and/or the second- and third-level organizations of which the trade union is a member).

However, the Committee notes that the new Act which has been adopted does not refer to other legislative provisions on which the Committee has also been commenting for many years, namely:

-  the prohibition of federations and confederations from calling strikes (section 417(1) of the Labour Code);

-  the prohibition of strikes, not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in a very wide range of services which are not necessarily essential (section 450(1)(a) of the Labour Code and Decrees Nos. 414 and 437 of 1952; 1543 of 1955; 1593 of 1959; 1167 of 1963; 57 and 534 of 1967) and the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (section 450(2) of the Labour Code), including when the strike is unlawful due to requirements which are contrary to the principles of freedom of association; and

-  the power of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike lasts more than a specific period (section 448(4) of the Labour Code).

In this regard, the Committee notes that during the direct contacts mission carried out in February 2000, draft legislative texts were prepared to amend the above provisions and that the Government undertook to submit the above draft texts to the social partners and subsequently to Congress. In these conditions, the Committee hopes that once these consultations have been held, the draft legislative texts will be submitted rapidly to Congress. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on developments in this process.

Finally, with regard to the observations made by the Colombian Textile Workers Union (SINTRATEXTIL) concerning the failure of the Textiles Rio Negro enterprise to comply with the obligation to deduct trade union dues, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that there are legal provisions requiring employers to deduct trade union dues and that, in the case in question, the Labour Inspectorate of Rionegro-Antioquía undertook an administrative investigation and penalized the enterprise in decisions Nos. 001, 007 and 800 dated 6 March, 30 March and 9 June 2000.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report. It also notes the comments submitted by the Textile Industry Workers' Trade Union of Colombia (SINTRATEXTIL) regarding the Textiles Río Negro company's non-compliance with the obligation to retain trade union subscriptions and requests the Government to send its comments on the matter.

The Committee notes the Government's indication that on 18 March 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Security submitted to the Congress of the Republic a Bill (which was adopted on first reading in the Senate on 9 June 1999 and to which the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia submitted amendments) which derogates or amends the following provisions commented on by the Committee for many years:

-- section 365(g) of the Labour Code on the requirement, in order for a trade union to be registered, that the labour inspector must certify that there is no other union (repealed);

-- section 380(3) which provides that "any member of a trade union executive who has been responsible for the dissolution of a union as a sanction may be denied the right of trade union association in any form for up to three years (...)" (repealed);

-- section 384 on the requirement that, in order to form a union, two-thirds of its members must be Colombian (repealed);

-- section 388(1)(a) on the need to be of Colombian nationality to hold executive office in a trade union;

-- section 388(1)(c) on the requirement to have normally exercised the activity, trade or position covered by the trade union in order to be a trade union official;

-- section 388(1)(f) which provides that a person must not have been given a serious sentence unless he or she has been rehabilitated, nor sued for ordinary offences at the time of election (amended to allow the trade union to set out in its statutes the requirements, in addition to membership of the union, for holding executive office in a trade union);

-- section 422(1)(c) on the need to have exercised the activity, occupation or position covered by the trade union in order to hold office in a federation or confederation;

-- section 422(1)(f) which provides that a person must not have been given a serious sentence, unless he or she has been rehabilitated, nor sued for ordinary offences at the time of election (amended to allow the trade union to set out in its statutes the requirements, in addition to active membership of the trade union, federation, or confederation, for holding executive office in a federation or confederation);

-- section 432(2) on the need to be of Colombian nationality in order to be a member of a delegation submitting to an employer the list of claims that are being made (amended to exclude the requirement to be of Colombian nationality);

-- section 444, last subsection, on the presence of the authorities at general assemblies convened to vote on referral to arbitration or on the calling of a strike (amended to allow the trade union the choice of having the labour authorities present or not); and

-- section 448(3) which provides that "when a strike is called, the Minister of Labour and Social Security, ex officio or at the request of the trade union or trade unions representing the majority of workers at the enterprise, or if not, of the workers gathered at a general meeting, may, once a strike is called, submit to a ballot by all workers in the enterprise whether they wish to submit the remaining dispute to arbitration" (amended so that the Minister of Labour and Social Security is no longer able automatically to submit to a ballot by the workers of the enterprise the submission to a court of arbitration).

Nevertheless, the Committee notes that section 9 of the Bill in question provides for amendment of section 486 on the control of internal management of trade unions and union meetings by officials, permitting that when there is a request from an interested party, the officials of the Ministry of Labour can call before them trade union leaders or members to require them to provide relevant information on their work, and to present books, registers, plans and other documents and obtain copies of or extracts from the latter. The Committee considers that the amendment is not in conformity with the provisions of the Convention since control by the administrative authority should be possible only when there exist reasonable grounds that an offence has been committed in order to carry out an investigation as a result of a representation or if there have been allegations of misappropriation or when requested by a certain percentage of members, with the Ministry of Labour always retaining the power to request information annually on the financial state of the trade unions. The Committee considers that the text of section 486 should be amended as indicated.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Bill mentioned does not refer to other legislative provisions relating to the exercise of the right to strike which have also been the subject of comments for many years:

-- section 417(1), which provides that "federations and confederations have the right to recognition of a legal personality and have the same functions as trade unions, except for the calling of a strike, which lies solely within the competence, when so authorized by the law, of the respective trade unions or groups of workers directly or indirectly concerned";

-- the prohibition of strikes, not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in a very wide range of public services which are not necessarily essential (new section 450(1)(a) of the Code and Decrees Nos. 414 and 437 of 1952; 1543 of 1955; 1593 of 1959; 1167 of 1963; 57 and 534 of 1967);

-- the power of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike lasts more than a specific period (section 448(4), of the Code);

-- the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (new section 450(2) of the Code), including when the strike is unlawful due to failure to comply with excessive requirements such as those mentioned in the aforegoing subparagraphs.

The Committee also notes in relation to the exercise of the right to strike the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1916, approved by the Governing Body at its March 1999 session, relating to the dismissal of trade union leaders, members and workers for taking part in a strike which was declared illegal in application of the legislative provisions which allow the Ministry of Labour to declare a strike illegal. On this matter the Committee recalls that a declaration of illegality of a strike should be made by the judicial authority or an independent authority, not by the Ministry of Labour.

The Committee requests the Government to take measures to repeal or amend the provisions mentioned and to inform it in its next report on any measure adopted on the matter.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the discussion that took place during the 1998 Conference Committee.

Firstly, the Committee regrets that the Government's report consists only of a reference to its previous report. The Committee recalls that during its examination of the application of the Convention in Colombia, the Conference Committee in 1998 expressed "the firm hope that the Government would supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on the concrete progress made both in law and in practice to ensure the application of this fundamental Convention ratified more than 20 years ago".

The Committee recalls that it had noted in its previous observation that the Government had prepared a Bill with the assistance of an ILO mission on freedom of association which visited the country in 1996, repealing and modifying a number of provisions of the Substantive Labour Code that had been criticized by the Committee for a number of years; however, the National Congress decided to shelve the Bill.

In this regard, the Committee is obliged to recall that there are numerous legislative provisions giving rise to problems of conformity with the Convention. In particular, the Committee has been requesting the Government for a number of years to repeal or modify the following provisions:

-- section 365(g) of the Labour Code on the requirement, in order for a trade union to be registered, that the labour inspector must certify that there is no other union;

-- section 384 on the requirement that, in order to form a union, two-thirds of its members must be Colombian;

-- section 388(1)(a) on the need to be of Colombian nationality to hold executive office in a trade union;

-- section 388(c) on the requirement to have normally exercised the activity, trade or position characteristic of the trade union in order to be a trade union officer;

-- section 432(2) on the need to be of Colombian nationality in order to be a member of a delegation submitting to an employer the list of claims that are being made;

-- section 486 on the supervision of the internal management of trade unions and meetings of unions by public servants;

-- section 444, last subsection, on the presence of the authorities at general assemblies convened to vote on referral to arbitration or on the calling of a strike;

-- section 422(1)(c) on the need to have exercised the activity, occupation or position characteristic of the trade union in order to hold office in a federation or confederation;

-- sections 388(f) and 422(f), which provide that a person must not have been condemned to a serious penalty, unless he or she has been rehabilitated, nor sued for ordinary offences at the time of election;

-- section 380(3) which provides that "any member of a trade union executive who has been responsible for the dissolution of a union as a sanction may be denied the right of trade union association in any form for up to three years (...)";

-- section 417(1), which provides that "federations and confederations have the right to the recognition of their legal personality and have the same functions as trade unions, except for the calling of a strike, which is the sole competence, when so authorized by the law, of the respective trade unions or groups of workers directly or indirectly concerned";

-- section 488(3), which provides that "when a strike is called, the Minister of Labour and Social Security, ex officio or at the request of the trade union or trade unions representing the majority of workers at the enterprise, or if not, of the workers gathered in a general assembly, may, once a strike is called, submit to a ballot by all the workers in the enterprise whether they wish to submit the remaining dispute to arbitration";

-- the prohibition of strikes, not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in a very wide range of public services which are not necessarily essential (new section 450(1)(a) of the Code and Decrees Nos. 414 and 437 of 1952; 1543 of 1955; 1593 of 1959; 1167 of 1963, 57 and 534 of 1967);

-- the power of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike lasts over a specific period (section 448(4) of the Code); and

-- the possibility of dismissing a trade union officer who has intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (new section 450(2) of the Code), including when the strike is unlawful due to failure to comply with excessive requirements such as those mentioned in the foregoing subparagraphs.

Under the circumstances, the Committee is obliged to stress the gravity of the situation and requests the Government to immediately take the measures necessary to have the above-noted provisions amended or repealed as soon as possible in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1999.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the information supplied by a government representative and the ensuing debates in the Conference Committee in 1997.

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it noted that the Government had prepared a Bill with the assistance of the ILO mission on freedom of association which visited the country in October 1996, envisaging the repeal or amendment of various provisions of the Substantive Labour Code criticized by the Committee for several years, and that a government representative had informed the Conference Committee in 1997 that the Bill had been submitted to the Congress of the Republic in November 1996. In practice, the Bill repeals or amends the following provisions:

-- section 365(g) on the requirement, in order for a trade union to be registered, that the labour inspector must certify that there is no other union;

-- section 384 on the requirement that, in order to form a union, two-thirds of its members must be Colombian;

-- section 388(1)(a) on the need to be of Colombian nationality to hold executive office in a trade union;

-- section 388(c) on the requirement to have normally exercised the activity, trade or position characteristic of the trade union in order to be a trade union officer;

-- section 432(2) on the need to be of Colombian nationality in order to be a member of a delegation submitting to an employer the list of claims that are being made;

-- section 486 on the supervision of the internal management of trade unions and meetings of unions by public servants;

-- section 444, last subsection, on the presence of the authorities at general assemblies convened to vote on referral to arbitration or on the calling of a strike;

-- section 422(1)(c) on the need to have exercised the activity, occupation or position characteristic of the trade union in order to hold office in a federation or confederation;

-- sections 388(f) and 422(f), which provide that a person must not have been condemned to a serious penalty, unless he or she has been rehabilitated, nor sued for ordinary offences at the time of election;

-- section 380(3) which provides that "any member of a trade union executive who has been responsible for the dissolution of a union as a sanction may be denied the right of trade union association in any form for up to three years (...)";

-- section 417(1), which provides that "federations and confederations have the right to the recognition of their legal personality and have the same functions as trade unions, except for the calling of a strike, which is the sole competence, when so authorized by the law, of the respective trade unions or groups of workers directly or indirectly concerned"; and

-- section 488(3), which provides that "when a strike is called, the Minister of Labour and Social Security, ex officio or at the request of the trade union or trade unions representing the majority of workers at the enterprise, or if not, of the workers gathered in a general assembly, may, once a strike is called, submit to a ballot by all the workers in the enterprise whether they wish to submit the remaining dispute to arbitration".

In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government has indicated that the Congress of the Republic decided to shelve the above-mentioned Bill and that, in these circumstances, the Ministry of Labour is studying the possibility of submitting to Congress the Labour Statutes referred to in article 53 of the Constitution and to include in it the amendments embodied in the shelved Bill. The Committee therefore stresses the need to amend or repeal with the utmost dispatch the above-mentioned provisions of the Substantive Labour Code in order to bring the legislation into compliance with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report on any measures adopted regarding this matter.

Furthermore, the Committee recalls that for a number of years it has been criticizing the legislative provisions concerning:

-- the prohibition of strikes, not only in essential services in the strict terms of the term, but also in a very wide range of public services which are not necessarily essential (new section 450(1)(a) of the Code and Decrees Nos. 414 and 437 of 1952; 1543 of 1955; 1593 of 1959; 1167 of 1963, 57 and 534 of 1967);

-- the power of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike lasts over a specific period (section 448)(4) of the Code); and

-- the possibility of dismissing trade union officer who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (new section 450(2) of the Code), including when the strike is unlawful due to failure to comply with excessive requirements such as those mentioned in the foregoing subparagraphs.

In this respect, in its previous observation the Committee noted that the Government had prepared a preliminary draft of a Bill defining the concept of essential public services, regulating the exercise of the right to strike in such services and containing other provisions for the peaceful settlement of collective labour disputes which would be in greater conformity with the requirements of the Convention and the principles of freedom of association.

While observing that the Government has not mentioned in its report whether the preliminary draft Bill in question has been finally drafted with the aim of presenting it to the Congress of the Republic, the Committee requests the Government to inform it on this matter in its next report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the report of the freedom of association mission carried out between 7 and 11 October 1996 in Colombia.

With regard to section 357 of the Substantive Labour Code concerning the prohibition of the existence of two or more trade unions of workers in the same enterprise, the Committee notes from the report of the above mission that this provision does not prevent other trade unions (representing an industry, a function, an occupation or various functions) from coexisting in the enterprise and that the social partners interviewed by the mission do not consider it to be an important restriction.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the Government's report. The Committee notes the report of the freedom of association mission undertaken from 7 to 11 October 1996 in Colombia, as requested by the Government in the Conference Committee in June 1996.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned:

- the requirement that, in order for a trade union to be registered, the labour inspector must certify that there is no other union (section 365(g) of the Substantive Labour Code);

- the requirement that, in order to form a union, two-thirds of its members must be Colombian (section 384 of the Code);

- the supervision of the internal management and meetings of unions by public servants (section 486 of the Code);

- the presence of the authorities at general assemblies convened to vote on referral to arbitration, or on the calling of a strike (new section 444, last subsection, of the Code);

- the requirements for eligibility for trade union office (sections 388(1)(a) and (c), 422(1)(a) and (c) and 432(2) of the Code): a person must be Colombian, belong to the trade or occupation and have exercised it for more than six months; and the requirement in sections 388(1)(g) and 422(1)(g) that a person must not have been condemned to a serious penalty, unless he has been rehabilitated, nor sued for ordinary offences at the time of election (this applies to trade union leaders only);

- the suspension, for up to three years, with loss of trade union rights, of trade union officers who have been responsible for the dissolution of their unions (new section 380(3) of the Code);

- the prohibition on federations and confederations from calling a strike (section 417(1) of the Code);

- the power of the Minister of Labour to submit ex officio to a ballot by all the workers in the enterprise as to whether they wish to submit persistent differences to arbitration (once a strike has been called) (section 448(3) of the Code);

- the prohibition of strikes, not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in a very wide range of public services which are not necessarily essential (new section 450(1)(a) of the Code and Decrees Nos. 414 and 437 of 1952, 1543 of 1955, 1593 of 1959, 1167 of 1963, 57 and 534 of 1967);

- the power of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike lasts for 60 calendar days (section 448(4) of the Code); and

- the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (new section 450(2) of the Code).

The Committee notes that the Government refers in its report to the mission on freedom of association which visited the country in October 1996. Furthermore, the Committee notes with interest the Government's statement in its report that it has prepared a Bill envisaging the repeal or amendment of various provisions of the Substantive Labour Code criticized by the Committee, and that the authorities of the Ministry of Labour have undertaken to submit this Bill to the Congress of the Republic during the current legislative period. In practice, the Bill repeals or amends the following provisions: section 365(g) on the requirement, in order for a trade union to be registered, that the labour inspector must certify that there is no other union (repealed); section 384 on the requirement that, in order to form a union, two-thirds of its members must be Colombian (repealed); section 388(1)(c) on the need to be of Colombian nationality to hold executive office in a trade union (repealed); section 388(c) on the requirement to have normally exercised the activity, trade or position characteristic of the trade union in order to be a trade union officer (repealed); section 432(2) on the need to be of Colombian nationality in order to be a member of a delegation submitting to an employer the list of claims that are being made (the requirement to be of Colombian nationality is eliminated); section 486 on the supervision of the internal management of trade unions and meetings of unions by public servants (all reference to the trade union organization or its members is deleted); section 444, last subsection, on the presence of the authorities at general assemblies convened to vote on referral to arbitration or on the calling of a strike (under the Bill, this will only be possible when the trade union organization concerned requests such presence); section 422(1)(c) on the need to have exercised the activity, occupation or position characteristic of the trade union in order to hold office in a federation or confederation (repealed); sections 388(f) and 422(f), which provide that a person must not have been condemned to a serious penalty, unless he has been rehabilitated, nor sued for ordinary offences at the time of election (amended; the new wording is "not have been found guilty or put on trial for offences prejudicial to the discharge of trade union activities"); section 380(3), which provides that "any member of a trade union executive who has been responsible for the dissolution of the union as a sanction may be denied the right of trade union association in any form for up to three years (...)" (repealed); section 417(1), which provides that "federations and confederations have the right to the recognition of their legal personality and have the same functions as trade unions, except for the calling of a strike, which is the sole competence, when so authorized by the law, of the respective trade unions or groups of workers directly or indirectly concerned" (the prohibition on federations and confederations from calling a strike is deleted); and section 448(3), which provides that when a strike is called, the Minister of Labour and Social Security, ex officio or at the request of the trade union or trade unions representing the majority of workers at the enterprise, or if not, of the workers gathered in a general assembly, may submit to a ballot by all the workers in the enterprise whether they wish to submit persistent differences to arbitration (...) (the words "ex officio" are deleted).

The Committee also notes that the Government transmitted to the mission a preliminary draft of a Bill defining the concept of essential public services, regulating the exercise of the right to strike in such services and containing other provisions for the peaceful settlement of collective labour disputes. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Office made the comments requested by the Government on the above preliminary draft and that its provisions would be in greater conformity with the requirements of the Convention and the principles of freedom of association. In this context, the Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that the officials of the Ministry of Labour and the President's Office are examining the comments made by the ILO with a view to adapting the preliminary draft text to the principles of freedom of association.

In these conditions, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the above Bill and preliminary draft text will be submitted to the Congress of the Republic as soon as possible and that the corresponding Acts will be adopted in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and the principles of freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to transmit the text of the above Acts as soon as they are adopted.

Furthermore, the Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to provide a detailed report in 1997.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the Government's report and recalls that its previous comments concerned:

- restrictions on the right to strike of organizations other than works unions (industrial unions, branch unions, and a ban on strikes by federations and confederations), laid down by section 376, supplemented by section 51 of Act No. 50 and section 417 of the Labour Code.

The Committee regrets to note that the Government has not answered its previous comment and asks it to adopt the necessary measures to enable unions other than works unions to exercise the right to strike, should they so wish.

With reference to section 389 of the Code which provides that neither members representing the employer before his workers nor members of the top management of an enterprise can be members of the executive of a trade union, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the scope of this provision since, according to the federations, employers unilaterally determine who shall represent them and this has given rise to abuse.

The Committee observes that section 429 of the Code defines a strike as the temporary and peaceful collective suspension of work, by the workers of an establishment or enterprise, for economic and occupational reasons; under section 450(1)(b), a strike is deemed to be unlawful when it pursues purposes other than occupational or economic ones; and section 450(1)(g) establishes that a strike is unlawful when it is called for the purpose of demanding that the authorities carry out an action which is at the latter's discretion.

The Committee draws the Government's attention to the principle that organizations responsible for defending the social, economic and occupational interests of workers should, as a rule, be able to use strike action to support their position in the search for solutions to problems posed by major social and economic policy trends which have a direct impact on their members and on workers in general, in particular as regards employment, social protection and the standard of living (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 165).

In this connection, the Committee asks the Government to state whether, under sections 429 and 450(1)(b) and (g), unions may strike against the Government's economic and social policy, and engage in sympathy strikes.

The Committee also observes that section 444(2), replaced by section 61 of Act No. 50, requires an absolute majority of the workers of the enterprise or the general assembly of the members of the union or unions which account for more than half those workers in order to call a strike or refer the dispute to arbitration. The Committee considers that such a requirement might undermine the possibility that the workers should have of organizing strike action. In the Committee's view, the majority required to call a strike should be limited to a simple majority of the votes, excluding those who did not take part in the vote. The Committee asks the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the percentage required in order to call a strike be so reduced.

The Committee expresses the hope that in its next report the Government will provide information on the above matters.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the Government's report, the information given by a government representative at the Conference Committee in 1993 and the subsequent discussions. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned:

-- the ban on more than one trade union in an enterprise, institution or establishment (section 357 of the Labour Code) and the refusal to register a second union in an enterprise (section 366(4)(c) of the Labour Code amended by section 46 of Act No. 50), and the requirement that, in order for a trade union to be registered, the labour inspector must certify that there is no other union (section 365(g) of the Code);

-- the requirement that, in order to form a union, two-thirds of its members must be Colombian (section 384 of the Code);

-- the supervision of the internal management and meetings of unions by public servants (section 486 of the Code);

-- the presence of the authorities at general assemblies convened to vote on referral to arbitration, or on the calling of a strike (new section 444, last subsection, of the Code);

-- the requirements for eligibility for trade union office (sections 388(1)(a) and (c), 422(1)(a) and (c) and 432(2) of the Code): a person must be Colombian, belong to the trade or occupation and have exercised it for more than six months; and the requirement in sections 388(1)(g) and 422(1)(g)) that a person must not have been condemned to a serious penalty, unless he has been rehabilitated, nor sued for ordinary offences at the time of election (this applies to trade union leaders only);

-- the suspension, for up to three years, with loss of trade union rights, of trade union officers who have been responsible for the dissolution of their unions (new section 380(3) of the Code);

-- the prohibition on federations and confederations from calling a strike (section 417(1) of the Code);

-- the prohibition of strikes, not only in essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in a very wide range of public services which are not necessarily essential (new section 450(1)(a) of the Code and Decrees Nos. 414 and 437 of 1952, 1543 of 1955, 1593 of 1959, 1167 of 1963, 57 and 534 of 1967);

-- the power of the Minister of Labour to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike lasts for 60 calendar days (section 448(4) of the Code);

-- the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (new section 450(2) of the Code).

The Committee notes with interest that, according to the Government, once the Standing Tripartite Committee on Labour has been established, the amendment of the following provisions will be submitted to it for consideration:

-- the requirement that, to form a trade union, two-thirds of the members must be Colombian (section 384 of the Code); and

-- the requirement that persons must belong to the trade or occupation in order to be eligible for trade union office (sections 388(1)(c) and 432(2) of the Code and section 422(1)(c) of the Code, for federations).

With regard to the authorities' attendance at trade union assemblies (section 444, last subsection of the Code), the Committee also notes that Decree No. 2519 of 14 December 1994, which regulates sections 444, 445 and 448 of the Code limits such attendance exclusively to observing voting on referral to arbitration, and the calling or continuation of a strike. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the freedom of assembly constitutes a fundamental aspect of trade union rights and that the authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 35). Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to repeal the provisions which allow the authorities' attendance at trade union assemblies during votes on strike action.

However, as regards the refusal to register a second trade union in an enterprise, the Committee regrets to note the Government's observation that where a trade union exists in an enterprise, another union of the same kind may not be registered, since this would contribute to weakening the trade union movement.

In this connection the Committee reminds the Government that under Article 2 of the Convention workers have the right to form and join trade unions of their own choosing, and draws its attention to the principle that it is not the purpose of the Convention to make trade union diversity an obligation, but to make this diversity possible in all cases. There is a fundamental difference between on the one hand a trade union monopoly established or maintained by law, and on the other hand, voluntary groupings of workers or unions which occur (without pressure from the public authorities, or due to the law) because they wish, for instance, to strengthen their bargaining position, coordinate their efforts to tackle ad hoc difficulties which affect all their organizations, etc. Trade union unity imposed by law runs counter to the standards expressly laid in the Convention (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 91). The Committee asks the Government to take appropriate steps to ensure that sections 357, 365(g) and 366(4)(c) are amended to take account of these comments.

The Committee again expresses the hope that the Standing Tripartite Committee provided for in the National Constitution will be set up in the near future, and asks the Government to ensure that the amendments made to labour legislation by the above Committee takes account of all the comments that the Committee of Experts has been making for many years. The Committee asks the Government to report on any positive developments in this area.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report and reminds that in its previous direct request the Committee also asked the Government to provide information on the mass dismissals in the public sector (Act No. 60 and the decrees issuing its regulations) and the growing use of short-term contracts (including contracts of less than 30 days) in the private sector (Act No. 50) - inter alia by placement agencies or temporary employment agencies - and in the public sector. The Committee considered that such measures could weaken the trade union movement and could be used for anti-trade union purposes.

In this connection, the Committee notes from the information supplied by the Government that Decree 1660 of 1991 (issuing the regulations of Act No. 60 of 1990) was declared unconstitutional by a decision of the Constitutional Court on 13 August 1992. With regard to short-term contracts, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, short-term contracts are voluntary in nature and are used in the case of workers who possess no technical skills, and that they in no way affect the right to conclude collective agreements which is guaranteed by law to trade union organizations. The Government adds that short-term contracts are used in sectors where there is no organized labour, but where trade unions do exist they have concluded collective agreements guaranteeing rights established by law, including contracts of indefinite duration. The Government states in conclusion that the regulation of temporary employment agencies in sections 71 to 94 is intended to prevent non-observance of workers' minimum legal rights. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, within the framework of the standing tripartite committee provided for in the new Constitution (article 56), consultations are held with the social partners to ensure, in particular, that the Government's structural adjustment policy has no adverse effects on the exercise of trade union rights.

In its previous direct request, the Committee observed that in the legislation, works unions were given precedence over industrial unions, as federations and confederations cannot negotiate directly (they act only in an advisory capacity for their members in the event of disputes, pursuant to section 426 of the Labour Code); industrial unions can only negotiate or call strikes if more than half of the workers in the enterprise are members (section 376 of the Code), and that sympathy strikes or strikes declared directly at different levels of the enterprise are excluded.

Since the Government provided no information whatsoever on these matters, the Committee again asks it to do so.

The Committee hopes that the next report will contain the information which the Government has not yet provided.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report and the discussions that took place at the Conference Committee in 1992. The Committee noted from the Government's previous report that there had been some progress in the legislation but pointed out that there were still a number of provisions which were not in conformity with the Convention, namely:

- the requirement that, to form a trade union, two-thirds of the members must be Colombian (section 384 of the Labour Code);

- the supervision of the internal management and meetings of unions by public servants (section 486 and section 1 of Decree No. 672 of 1956);

- the presence of the authorities at general assemblies convened to vote upon the calling of a strike (new section 444, last paragraph, of the Code);

- the requirement of Colombian nationality for election to trade union office (paragraph 384 of the Code);

- the suspension for up to three years, with loss of trade union rights, of trade union officers who have been responsible for the dissolution of their unions (new section 380(3) of the Code);

- the requirement that persons must belong to the trade or occupation in order to be eligible for trade union office (sections 388(1)(c) and 432(2) of the Code, and section 422(1)(c) of the Code for federations);

- the prohibition on federations and confederations from calling a strike (section 417(1) of the Code);

- the prohibition of strikes not only in the essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in a very wide range of public services which are not necessarily essential (new section 450(1)(a) of the Code and Decrees Nos. 414 and 437 of 1952; 1543 of 1955; 1593 of 1959; 1167 of 1963; 57 and 534 of 1967);

- various restrictions on the right to strike and the power of the Minister of Labour and the President to intervene in the dispute (sections 448(3) and (4), 450(1)(g), of the Code, and Decree No. 939 of 1966 as amended by Act No. 48 of 1968, and section 4 of Act No. 48 of 1968);

- the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (new section 450(2) of the Code).

The Committee expresses its concern at the serious situation of violence confronting Colombia, which in general makes it impossible for the normal living conditions of the population to be maintained and prevents the full exercise of the trade union activities.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government at the Conference Committee to the effect that:

- the amendment of section 384 (the requirement that two-thirds of the members must be Colombian for a trade union to be formed) can be discussed when the standing tripartite labour committee provided for in the National Constitution is set up;

- with regard to the requirement that persons must belong to the trade or occupation to be eligible for trade union office (sections 388(1)(c), 432(2) and 422(1)(c) of the Code), the Government states that it is open to dialogue with the trade union confederations and has requested the ILO's technical assistance in this respect;

- as regards the prohibition of strikes by federations and confederations, the Government states that a Bill is before Congress on this subject;

- the new Constitution of 1991 only lays down restrictions on the right to strike in essential public services, to be defined by the legislature in a future law, and there will be tripartite consultation on the subject.

With regard to the power of the Minister of Labour and the President of the Republic to intervene in disputes (sections 448(3) and (4) and 450(1)(g) of the Code) by convening a compulsory arbitration tribunal, the Committee emphasizes, as has the Committee on Freedom of Association on several occasions (see 270th, 275th and 284th Reports, Cases Nos. 1434, 1477 and 1631 (Colombia), paras. 256, 299 and 398 respectively), that the right to strike can only be subject to heavy restrictions (such as the imposition of compulsory arbitration in strikes) in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is in those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

As regards the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an unlawful strike (section 450(2) of the Code), the Committee agrees with the Government's statement that the ILO supervisory bodies recognize the legitimacy of dismissal in cases of unlawful strikes. The Committee none the less points out that, when a strike is declared unlawful on the basis of a national standard which contravenes the principles of freedom of association, the dismissal of trade union officials, even if it is lawful, would be contrary to the Convention.

With regard to the provisions which allow the internal management of trade unions and trade union meetings to be supervised by public servants, the Committee notes from the information contained in the Government's report that the Political Constitution of 1991 repealed Decree No. 672 of 1956 (section 1).

With regard to the provision which authorizes suspension of trade union officers who have been responsible for the dissolution of a union (section 380(3)), the Committee notes that, according to the Government, this provision was amended by section 52 of Act No. 50 of 1990 under which the power to dissolve a trade union is conferred on the judicial authority and that the names of the persons responsible shall be stated.

As regards the first point, the Committee observes that although Decree No. 672 of 1956 has been repealed by the Constitution, section 486 of the Code is still in force. As regards the second point, the Committee observes that section 380(3) of Act No. 50 of 1990 to which the Government refers, corresponds to section 380(4) of the Code, and there has been no change in the wording. This provision suspends for up to three years the right of association of trade union leaders who have been found responsible by the judicial authority of dissolving a trade union.

The Committee once again asks the Government to indicate in its next report whether the provision contained in section 366(4)(c) of the Code (amended by section 46 of Act No. 50 of 1990), whereby an application for registration by a new works union may be rejected, applies if the trade union seeking registration has a greater number of members than the trade union that is already registered.

With reference to section 389 of the Code which provides that neither members representing the employer before his workers nor members of the top management of an enterprise can be members of the Executive of a trade union, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the scope of this provision since, according to the federations, employers unilaterally determine who shall represent them and this has given rise to abuse.

The Committee hopes that in amending and drafting the above laws, account will be taken of the comments it has been making for several years. It asks the Government to continue to take steps within the framework of the standing tripartite committee and, should it so wish, with technical assistance from the ILO, to bring its legislation into closer conformity with the Convention, and to keep it informed of further developments.

The Committee is also addressing a direct request to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report whether the provision contained in section 366(4)(c) of the Labour Code, whereby an application for registration by a new works union may be rejected if there is already an organisation of the same category in the enterprise also applies if the trade union that is applying for registration has a greater number of members than the trade union that is already registered.

Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the following matters raised in the report of the direct contacts mission:

- the mass dismissals in the public sector (Act No. 60 and the decrees issuing its implementing regulations) and the growing use of short-term contracts (including contracts of less than 30 days) in both the private sector (Act No. 50) - including by placement agencies or temporary employment agencies - and the public sector, are considerably weakening the trade union movement and are liable to be used for anti-trade union purposes;

- in the legislation, works unions are given virtually absolute precedence over industrial unions: collective bargaining at the occupational union level is very rare because, amongst other reasons, the federations and confederations cannot negotiate directly (they act only in an advisory capacity for their members in the event of disputes, pursuant to section 426 of the Labour Code), and an industrial union can only negotiate collectively or declare a strike if more than half of the workers in the enterprise are members (section 376 of the Code). In addition, section 429 of the Code defines a strike as "the collective, temporary and peaceful suspension of work by the workers of an establishment or enterprise for economic or occupational purposes ...". This implies that the reference for the declaration of a strike is the enterprise and that sympathy strikes or strikes declared directly at different levels of the enterprise are excluded. Trade union activities are thus indirectly subject to conditions, or even actually restricted;

- section 358 of the Code provides that trade union statutes can restrict the admission of high-ranking employees to first level unions; section 389 provides that neither members representing the employer before his workers nor members of the top management of an enterprise can be members of the executive of a trade union (section 389). According to the federations, employers unilaterally determine who shall represent them and this has given rise to abuse. The mission did not have the opportunity to take this point up with the authorities.

The Committee hopes that in its next report, the Government will provide information in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes the Government's report, the discussions at the Conference Committee in 1991 and the report of the direct contacts mission which visited Colombia from 16 to 20 September 1991.

The Committee notes with interest the provisions of the new Constitution (of 18 July 1991) respecting freedom of association, including the provision under which the cancellation or suspension of legal personality can only take place by judicial means.

The Committee notes with satisfaction the repeal of the following legal provisions restricting trade union rights, which results in a significant improvement in the application of the Convention:

- section 380 of the Labour Code (the dissolution, winding up and removal from the trade union register of trade unions by administrative authority in certain cases) (modified by Act No. 50 of 1990);

- Resolution No. 4 of 1952 (administrative interference in trade union independence) (abrogated by Decree No. 4734 of September 1991);

- Decree No. 1923 of 1978 (respecting national security, which prohibited any transitory occupation of public places with the objective of influencing a decision by the legitimate authorities which is not in force any more);

- Decree No. 1422 of 1989 (administrative intervention in trade unions' bookkeeping) (abrogated by Ministerial Decree of September 1991);

- Decrees Nos. 2655 of 1954, 85 of 1956 and 1469 (sections 14-26) of 1978 (restrictive regulations respecting trade union meetings) (abrogated by Decree No. 2293 of October 1991);

- section 379(a) of the Labour Code (prohibition of trade unions from taking part in political matters) (abrogated by Act No. 50 of 1990);

- Decrees Nos. 2200 and 2201 (prohibition of strikes, subject to administrative penalties and sentences of imprisonment, in cases where a state of emergency has been declared) (abrogated by Decree No. 2620 of December 1990).

Notwithstanding the amendments made by the Government, the Committee is bound to emphasise the provisions of the legislation which remain in force and are incompatible with the Convention. These include the following points:

1. The establishment of workers' organisations (Article 2 of the Convention)

- the requirement that two-thirds of the members are Colombian to establish a trade union (section 384 of the Labour Code);

- massive dismissals of workers in the public sector and the extended use of short-term contracts in the private sector aimed at weakening the trade union movement, which were brought to the attention of the direct contacts mission.

2. Interference in the internal administration of trade unions (Article 3 of the Convention)

- the supervision of the internal management and meetings of unions by public servants (section 486 of the Labour Code and section 1 of Decree No. 672 of 1956);

- the presence of the authorities at general assemblies convened to vote upon the calling of a strike (new section 444, last paragraph, of the Labour Code);

- the requirement that persons be Colombian for election to trade union office (section 384 of the Labour Code);

- the suspension for up to three years, with loss of trade union rights, of trade union officers who have been responsible for the dissolution of their unions (new section 380(3) of the Labour Code);

- the requirement that persons belong to the trade or occupation in order to be considered eligible for election to trade union office (sections 388(1)(c) and 432(2) of the Labour Code and section 422(1)(c) of the Labour Code for federations).

3. Right of trade unions to further and defend the interests of the workers (Article 3 of the Convention)

- the prohibition on federations and confederations from calling a strike (section 417(1) of the Labour Code);

- the prohibition of strikes not only in the essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in a very wide range of public services which are not necessarily essential (section 430 and new section 450(1)(a) of the Labour Code and Decrees Nos. 414 and 437 of 1952; 1543 of 1955; 1593 of 1959; 1167 of 1963; 57 and 534 of 1967);

- various restrictions on the right to strike and the power of the Minister of Labour and the President to intervene in the dispute (sections 448(3) and (4) and 450(1)(g) of the Labour Code, Decree No. 939 of 1966 as amended by Act No. 48 of 1968, and section 4 of Act No. 48 of 1968);

- the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an illegal strike (new section 450(2) of the Labour Code).

The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that there is no ILO Convention in which an ILO position has been adopted on the right to strike, and that a reading of Article 3 of the Convention shows that the Article refers to the right of workers to formulate their programmes of activities, but that such a programme cannot transgress the Constitution and laws of a country. The Government adds that Article 2 of the Convention only enshrines the right of autonomy of trade unions but in no case the right to strike, which has its own specific characteristics. Finally, with reference to the prohibition of strikes in the public services, the Government notes that in the new political Constitution the right to strike is guaranteed except in the essential public services, as defined by the legislator.

The Committee emphasises that although it is clear that the provisions of the Convention do not specifically mention the right to strike, Article 3 of the Convention provides that workers' organisations shall have the right to organise their activities and formulate their programmes in full freedom. The Committee considers that this right includes recourse to strikes, which are one of the essential means through which workers and their organisations may promote and defend their economic and social interests. As an essential means in this respect, it should not be the object of excessive restrictions. The Committee has considered that the prohibition of strikes in the public services should be confined to public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority or to essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Moreover, if strikes are restricted or prohibited for public employees and persons who work in essential services, the Committee has considered that appropriate guarantees should be afforded such as impartial and speedy conciliation, mediation and arbitration procedures, in order to protect those workers who are denied one of the essential means of defending their occupational interests.

The Committee notes with interest that Minister of Labour and Social Security expressed to the direct contacts mission the desire formally to request the technical assistance of the ILO in the future process of reforming labour legislation.

The Committee requests the Government to continue taking measures to adjust its legislation to the requirements of the Convention and to supply information in this respect.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received, although it notes Act No. 50 of 28 December 1990 introducing amendments to the Substantive Labour Code.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether, by virtue of Act No. 50, an appeal can be made to the courts against a refusal by the administrative authority to register a trade union or amendments to its by-laws. The Committee also requests the Government to state whether the refusal to register a trade union, as set out in section 366(4)(c) in the event of "an application for registration by a new enterprise union in an enterprise in which there is already an organisation of the same category", also applies if the trade union that is applying for registration has a greater number of members than the trade union that is already registered. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether, by virtue of new section 362 of the Labour Code respecting the requirements to be fulfilled by trade union statutes, it is to be understood that the regulations issued by Resolution No. 4 of 1952 respecting a whole series of matters that have to be covered by the unions' statutes and not by the law (quorum of the general assembly, composition of the executive bodies, election procedures, etc.) have been repealed. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether Decree No. 2132 of 1976, which prohibits public meetings (section 1(c)) and Decree No. 1923 of 1978, concerning security, which prohibits all temporary occupation of public places or places open to the public, or offices of public or private bodies with a view to influencing a decision by the legitimate authorities (section 7), are still in force.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes that it has not received the Government's report. However, it notes the long discussions which took place in the Conference Committee in June 1990, and Act No. 50, of 28 December 1990, amending the Substantive Labour Code.

I. The Committee notes with satisfaction that Act No. 50 has made a number of improvements to the previous provisions as regards freedom of association and collective bargaining, some of which had been the subject of comments by the Committee of Experts or the Committee on Freedom of Association:

- the machinery and formalities for the registration of trade union organisations have been accelerated (new sections 361 and following);

- it has been established that all trade union organisations, by the mere fact of their establishment and dating from their constituent assembly, enjoy legal personality (new section 364);

- the number of workers and trade union officers protected by trade union immunity (new section 406) and the scope of protection against interference with the right of association in trade unions (new section 354) has been approved;

- refusal to bargain with trade union organisations is illegal and punishable by fines (new section 354(c));

- it is forbidden to conclude collective agreements with non-unionised workers when the trade union or trade unions represent more than one-third of the workers in an enterprise (paragraph added to Chapter II, Title II, third part of the Code);

- official employees are permitted to establish mixed trade union organisations representing both official employees and public servants (new section 414, final paragraph).

II. Nevertheless, the Committee regrets that Act No. 50 has omitted to take into account certain comments that the Committee has been making for many years on the provisions of the legislation that are incompatible with the Convention. These comments concern the following points:

1. The establishment of workers' organisations (Article 2 of the Convention)

- the requirement that 75 per cent of members are Colombian to establish a trade union (section 384 of the Labour Code), whereas it should be possible for workers to establish organisations of their own choosing without distinction on grounds such as nationality.

2. Interference in the internal administration of trade unions (Article 3 of the Convention)

(a) Financing, administration and meetings

- the supervision of the internal management and meetings of unions by public servants (section 486 of the Labour Code and section 1 of Decree No. 672 of 1956), strict rules for trade union meetings (Decree No. 2655 of 1954) and the presence of authorities at general assemblies convened to vote upon the calling of a strike (new section 444, last paragraph, of the Labour Code).

(b) Election and suspension of trade union officers

- the requirement that persons be Colombian for election to trade union office (section 384 of the Labour Code and section 18(a) of Resolution No. 4 of 1952);

- the election of trade union officers has to be submitted for approval by the administrative authorities (section 21 of Resolution No. 4 of 1952 and sections 10 to 13 of Decree No. 1469 of 1978);

- the suspension for up to three years, with loss of trade union rights, of trade union officers who have been responsible for the dissolution of their unions (new section 380(3) of the Code);

- the requirement that persons belong to the trade or occupation in order to be considered eligible for election to trade union office (sections 388(1)(c) and 432(2) of the Labour Code; section 18(c) of Resolution No. 4 of 1952, for first-level trade unions; and section 422(1)(c) of the Labour Code, for federations).

3. Right of trade unions to further and defend the interests of the workers (Article 3 of the Convention)

- the prohibition on trade unions from taking part in political matters (sections 12 and 50(a) of Resolution No. 4 of 1952; section 16 of Decree No. 2655 of 1954; and section 379(a) of the Labour Code);

- the prohibition on trade unions from holding meetings on political matters (section 12 of Resolution No. 4 of 1952);

- the prohibition on federations and confederations from calling a strike (section 417(a) of the Labour Code);

- prohibition of strikes not only in the essential services in the strict sense of the term but also in a very wide range of public services which are not necessarily essential (section 430 and new section 450(1)(a) of the Labour Code and Decrees Nos. 414 and 437 of 1952; 1543 of 1955; 1593 of 1959; 1167 of 1963; 57 and 534 of 1967);

- the prohibition of strikes when they are called for the purpose of requiring the public authorities to take action in relation to matters which fall within their exclusive reserve (new section 450(1)(g));

- the power of the Minister of Labour to refer to a vote by all the workers in an enterprise the question of whether or not they wish to submit persistent differences of view to arbitration once a strike has been called (new section 448(3) of the Code);

- the power of the Minister to terminate a dispute lasting more than 60 days and the power of the President to terminate a strike which is affecting the interests of the national economy and to submit disputes to compulsory arbitration (new section 448(4) of the Labour Code, Decree No. 939 of 1966, as amended by Act No. 48 of 1968, and section 4 of Act No. 48 of 1968);

- the prohibition of strikes, subject to administrative penalties (the suspension of the legal personality of trade unions) and sentences of imprisonment, in cases where a state of emergency has been declared (examples of the application of this prohibition are Decree No. 2004 of 1977 and Decrees Nos. 2200 and 2201 of October 1988);

- the possibility of dismissing trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an illegal strike (section 450(2) of the Labour Code).

4. Suspension and dissolution by administrative authority (Article 4 of the Convention)

- the withdrawal or suspension by administrative authority of the legal personality of a trade union in the event of violation of the provisions respecting trade unions (section 380 of the Labour Code) or in the event of a strike that is declared illegal (new section 450(3) of the Labour Code).

The Committee had noted that a Bill was to be submitted in the near future to the Congress of the Republic to amend section 379 of the Labour Code, which prohibits trade unions from intervening in political matters. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on any development in the situation in this connection.

Despite the progress that has been noted in this observation, the Committee emphasises that there remain many provisions that are still not in accordance with the Convention and requests the Government to take the necessary measures as soon as possible to bring the law and practice into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee reminds the Government that the ILO is as its disposal to provide assistance in the revision of the legislation.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 78th Session and to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1991.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

In its previous direct request, the Committee referred to the regulation of public meetings.

The Committee repeats its request to the Government to state whether the following texts are still in force: Decree No. 2132 of 1976 prohibiting public meetings (section 1(c)) and Decree No. 1923 of 1978 concerning the legislation on security, which prohibits all temporary occupation of public places or places open to the public or offices of public or private bodies with a view to influencing a decision by the legitimate authorities (section 7).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes the Government's reports and the information supplied by a Government representative to the Conference Committee in 1989.

The Committee notes the assurances given by the Government in its last report concerning the creation of a special committee to examine the whole of the labour legislation, which is now outdated in the light of its comments, in order to bring the legislation into conformity with ILO Conventions. It also notes the creation of a national labour council, a tripartite body that is to play an advisory role in the planned reform of the labour legislation (Decree No. 2393 of 20 October 1989).

The report indicates, however, that an in-depth reform requires detailed examination and analysis within the context of the political, economic and social situation of the country.

In this connection, the Committee recalls the divergencies existing between the national legislation and the Convention:

(1) The establishment of workers' organisations (Article 2 of the Convention):

- the requirement of 75 per cent of members to be Colombian to establish a trade union, whereas it should be possible for workers to establish organisations of their own choosing without distinctions on grounds such as nationality (section 384 of the Labour Code).

(2) Interference in the internal administration of trade unions (Article 3 of the Convention):

(a) By-laws, financing, administration and meetings:

- ministerial approval of amendments to the rules of first-level unions, federations and confederations (sections 369, 370 and 425 of the Labour Code and section 15 of Resolution No. 4 of 1952);

- regulation by Resolution No. 4 of 1952 of questions that should be governed by the rules of the unions rather than by the law (quorum of the general assembly, composition of the executive bodies, electoral procedure, etc.);

- supervision of the internal management and meetings of unions by public servants (section 486 of the Labour Code and section 1 of Decree No. 672 of 1956), strict rules for trade union meetings (Decree No. 2655 of 1954) and presence of authorities at general assemblies convened to vote the calling of a strike (section 444(2) of the Labour Code).

(b) Election and suspension of trade union officers:

- the requirement that persons be Colombian for election to trade union office (section 384 of the Labour Code and section 18(a) of Resolution No. 4 of 1952);

- the election of trade union officers to be submitted for approval by the administrative authorities (section 21 of Resolution No. 4 of 1952 and sections 10 to 13 of Decree No. 1469 of 1978);

- the suspension, with loss of trade union rights, of trade union officers who have been responsible for the dissolution of their unions (section 380(2)(b) and (4) of the Labour Code);

- the requirement that persons belong to the trade or occupation in order to be considered eligible for election to trade union office (sections 388(1)(c) and 432(2) of the Labour Code; section 18(c) of Resolution No. 4 of 1952 for first-level trade unions; and section 422(1)(c) of the Labour Code for federations).

(3) Right of trade unions to further and defend the interests of the workers (Article 3 of the Convention):

- prohibition on trade unions from taking part in political matters (sections 12 and 50(a) of Resolution No. 4 of 1952; section 16 of Decree No. 2655 of 1954; and section 379(a) of the Labour Code);

- prohibition on trade unions from holding meetings on political matters (section 12 of Resolution No. 4 of 1952);

- prohibition on federations and confederations from calling a strike (section 417(1) of the Labour Code);

- prohibition of strikes not only in the essential services in the strict sense of the term, but also in a very wide range of public services which are not necessarily essential (section 430 of the Labour Code and Decrees Nos. 414 and 437 of 1952, 1543 of 1955, 1593 of 1959, 1167 of 1963, 57 and 534 of 1967);

- the power of the Minister to terminate a dispute lasting more than 40 days and the power of the President to terminate a strike which is affecting the interests of the national economy and to submit disputes to compulsory arbitration (Decree No. 939 of 1966, as amended by Act No. 48 of 1968, and section 4 of Act No. 48 of 1968);

- the prohibition of strikes combined with administrative penalties (the suspension of the legal personality of trade unions) and sentences of imprisonment in cases where the state of emergency has been declared (Decree No. 2004 of 1977, Decrees Nos. 2200 and 2201 of October 1988);

- the automatic dismissal of trade union officers who have intervened or participated in an illegal strike (section 450(2) of the Labour Code).

(4) Suspension and dissolution by administrative authority (Article 4 of the Convention):

- the withdrawal or suspension by administrative authority of the legal personality of a trade union in the event of violation of the provisions respecting trade unions (section 380 of the Labour Code) or in the event of a strike that is declared illegal (section 450(2) of the Labour Code).

In its report and at the Conference Committee, the Government supplied information on a number of points:

1. As regards the procedure for granting legal personality to trade unions and for approving their rules, a matter on which the Workers' Central Organisation of Colombia (CUT) submitted comments, the Government once again indicates that the authorities place no obstacle on the establishment of trade unions. On the contrary, over the past three years, two new federations have been registered, legal personality has been recognised for 359 trade unions and 294 cases of amended rules have been approved. The Government also reports its intention to speed up the processes in consultation with trade union leaders.

The Committee, in the same way as the Committee on Freedom of Association, which, in its examination of Case No. 1434 (259th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its November 1988 Session), noted many cases of the refusal of applications for the recognition of legal personality and long delays in the process, once again requests the Government to take practical measures to speed up the procedure and reduce the formalities.

2. The Committee notes that a Bill is to be submitted in the near future to the Congress of the Republic to amend section 379 of the Labour Code, which prohibits trade unions from intervening in political matters. It requests the Government to supply information on the development of the situation in this connection.

3. The Committee takes due note of the repeal of Decrees Nos. 2200 and 2201 of October 1988, which prohibited strike action under penalty of imprisonment.

The Committee notes that during a state of emergency the authorities avail themselves of such measures, as was the case in 1977 with the adoption of Decree No. 2004, which was repealed by the lifting of the state of emergency in 1982 (Decree No. 1674 of 1982), in 1985 and most recently in 1988, although Colombia has been under a state of emergency since 1984 (Decree No. 1038 of 1984).

The Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to the fact that the prohibition of strikes constitutes a major restriction of one of the essential means that should be available to workers' organisations to defend their interests, that such measures should only be introduced in a situation of acute national crisis and then only for a limited period, and that penalties of imprisonment should not be imposed in the case of peaceful strikes (paragraphs 206 and 223 of the 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining).

4. As regards the compulsory arbitration machinery, the Government refers to Decree No. 939 of 1966, as amended by Act No. 48 of 1968, under which at any time during a strike a dispute may be referred to compulsory arbitration where the majority of the workers so decide after a ballot has been taken either at the decision of the workers or the Minister. The Committee recalls that by virtue of section 2 of the above Decree (which was not repealed by Act No. 48 of 1968) the Minister is empowered, at his own initiative, to terminate a dispute that has lasted more than 40 days by referring it to compulsory arbitration, and that this power is also conferred upon the President in certain circumstances under section 4 of Act No. 48 of 1968.

The Committee recalls once again that these provisions, which empower the authorities to terminate a strike by referring a dispute to compulsory arbitration, restrict the exercise of the right to strike. In the opinion of the Committee, the principle whereby the right to strike may be limited or prohibited should be confined to public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority, to essential services - whether they are public, semi-public or private (i.e. those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) - or in a situation of acute national crisis, and then only for a limited period.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to take measures to confine the possibilities of resorting to compulsory arbitration to the circumstances mentioned above.

5. As regards the withdrawal or suspension by administrative authority of the legal personality of a trade union, on which the CUT has also commented, the Committee recalls that this measure may be imposed either in the event of continued violations of the provisions respecting trade unions (section 380(c) of the Code), or in the event of a strike being declared illegal (section 450), or under Decrees adopted during a state of emergency as a result of participating in strikes that have been declared illegal, the most recent of which date from October 1988.

The Committee notes that Decrees Nos. 2200 and 2201 of October 1988 have been repealed and notes the Government's statement that even in a state of emergency a trade union whose legal personality has been suspended can appeal through administrative channels, which has the effect of suspending the measures, or through the disputes procedure which may be accompanied by an appeal requesting the temporary suspension of the decision.

However, in the opinion of the Committee, it does not appear from the provisions of the Code of Labour Procedure respecting appeals relating to strikes (sections 121 to 129) that an appeal against a decision to suspend the legal personality of a union due to an illegal strike has the effect of suspending such a decision. The Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention once again to paragraph 232 of its 1983 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining where it states that the proper implementation of the principle set out in Article 4 of the Convention implies more than the existence of a legislative provision providing for the possibility of appealing against such decisions to the courts; decisions should not be permitted to take effect until a specified period of time has elapsed without any appeal being lodged or until they have been confirmed by the judicial authority. However, even a right of appeal to the courts does not always constitute a sufficient guarantee since, if the authority possesses discretionary power in reaching its decision, the judges can do no more than verify whether the law has been correctly applied. The judges should therefore be in a position to examine the substance of the case as well as the grounds for the dissolution or suspension of an organisation.

The Committee once again requests the Government to eliminate from the legislation any possibility of suspending or dissolving a trade union organisation by administrative authority, or at least to provide that the administrative decision does not take effect until the judicial authority has ruled on any appeal that may be made, even when such a decision has been taken in a situation of emergency. The Committee also notes the information supplied by the Government to the Committee on Freedom of Association (270th Report, Case No. 1477, approved by the Governing Body at its February-March 1990 Session) to the effect that the trade union organisations that had been subject to a suspension decision under section 1 of Decree No. 2201 of October 1988 recovered their legal personality when the penalties imposed through suspension expired in December 1989.

The Committee trusts that the revision of the legislation that has been announced will make it possible to achieve firm results as regards all the points that have been raised, and it requests the Government to supply detailed information on the work of the above special committee and the measures that have been taken or are envisaged in this respect. It recalls that the ILO is at the Government's disposal to assist it in its task of revising the legislation.