Interim Report - Report No 160, March 1977

1. 203. In a communication dated 4 May 1974, the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) presented a complaint of alleged violations of trade union rights in Guatemala. CLAT sent further information in a communication dated 29 May 1974.
2. 204. The above communications were transmitted to the Government which, in a communication of 24 January 1976, indicated that there had been no violation of trade union rights and that it would send its observations later. The latter were sent in a communication dated 18 June 1976.
3. 205. Guatemala has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 206. In its communication of 4 May 1974 the Latin American Central of workers, in the name of its affiliate in Guatemala, the National Central of Workers (CNT), alleged that on the occasion of the May Day demonstration, the forces of the national army (G2) and the government police attacked the procession, causing the death of four people and seriously wounding many others, whose total number had not yet been determined.
2. 207. The CLAT added that the dead and wounded included members of the National Central of workers, in particular Julio Celso de León, a national leader and member of the Executive Committee of CLAT. According to the complainant organisation, this labour leader, whose life was said to be in danger, had been seriously wounded by three bullets as he was marching peacefully past the National Congress building.
3. 208. In its communication of 29 May 1974 the CLAT provided a list of persons who were said to be either dead or wounded. The former include Roberto Casimiro Estrada L, of the Zacatón Peasant League; Rafael Caal Inocente, of the Mazatenango Peasant League; and Clemente Hernandez Garcia, of the Municipal Workers' Union. Among the wounded CLAT listed Julio Celso de León, already mentioned in its previous communication, and the names of 14 other persons; the CLAT did not indicate whether the latter were officers of trade unions. The CLAT attached to its communication press cuttings reporting the events of 1 May 1974.
4. 209. In its reply the Government stated that the complaint presented by the CLAT was unfounded and requested that the Committee decide that the complaint called for no further examination. The Government supplied information in the form of a report of the Ministry of the Interior on the events of 1 May 1974.
5. 210. The report indicated that the workers' parade had been organised by the prefecture at the request of the General Secretary of the Autonomous Trade Union Federation of Guatemala (FASGUA). In order to facilitate the demonstration, a large area of the city was marked off for the procession.
6. 211. The procession was following its planned route when a group of 150 to 200 persons, led by the leaders of the Guatemalan Christian Democrat Party, suddenly appeared and interrupted it by trying to make it change its course in the direction of the central park.
7. 212. As the new itinerary had not been authorised by the prefecture, the national police told the organisers that they must not depart from the authorised route. At this point a hail of stones was hurled at the police forces, injuring two policemen, breaking the windows of a number of shops and completely destroying the traffic lights and the electric lighting at the crossing. In spite of the damage caused and the warning given by the security forces, a group of persons still insisted on following an unauthorised route. The national police therefore had no choice but to throw tear gas bombs to oblige the demonstrators to return to the planned route. The demonstraters then scattered, whereupon shots were fired by certain persons who had infiltrated the procession. After this moment of tension the police and security forces regained control of the situation and the planned meeting took place without further incident.
8. 213. The report of the Ministry of the Interior indicated that the national police co-operated in the procession and exercised effective supervision. The tear gas was used because of the column which tried to divert the procession, and a group of persons took the opportunity to commit acts of vandalism. The report rejected the responsibility of the national police for the shooting, as they had been expressly ordered not to use firearms. The responsibility for the acts of violence lay with the persons who had infiltrated the demonstration. Finally, the report points out that a group of persons taking part in the procession told the police that they regretted this interruption, which had been caused by persons who had nothing to do with the procession which they had organised. The Government attached to its communication a press cutting which reported that the Labour Day ceremony took place in an orderly fashion.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 214. The Committee notes that the complaint relates to incidents that took place on the occasion of a May Day procession, during which the forces of order are alleged to have killed a number of trade unionists and wounded others. The Committee observes that the Government places the responsibility for the events on a group of persons who are alleged to have attempted to divert the procession from its authorised route. Moreover, according to the Government, the shots were fired by persons who had infiltrated the demonstration and not by the police force, which did not use its firearms. Finally, the Committee observes that the Government's remarks do not refer to the trade unionists who, according to the allegations of the complainant, were killed or injured.
2. 215. In previous cases the Committee has considered that the right to organise public meetings and processions on the occasion of May Day constitutes an important aspect of trade union rights. However, trade unions must conform to the general provisions applicable to all public meetings and must respect the reasonable limits which may be fixed by the authorities with a view to maintaining public order.
3. 216. In the present case, the authorisation to organise a procession had been granted on condition that it followed a predetermined itinerary. The Committee is of the view that such a reservation does not constitute a violation of trade union rights.
4. 217. As regards the events which caused the death of a number of trade unionists and injury to others, the Committee recalls that it has, on many occasions, stressed the desirability of instituting an impartial inquiry in order to elucidate the facts and to determine responsibility in the event of disturbances causing loss of life. The Government's reply does not indicate whether or not an impartial inquiry in particular, the Government does not state whether the persons who had infiltrated the demonstration and who were allegedly responsible for the shooting and the deaths and injuries, have been found and whether their responsibility has been established by the competent legal authorities.