Interim Report - Report No 291, November 1993

1. 489. The complaint in this case is contained in a communication from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 22 October 1992. Subsequently, in communications dated 16 November 1992 and 13 April 1993, the ICFTU provided additional information. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 9 August 1993.
2. 490. Venezuela has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 491. In its communications of 22 October and 16 November 1992, the ICFTU alleges that for almost two years the Venezuelan press, with the tacit consent of the authorities, carried out a campaign to discredit and undermine the efficient operation of the most important trade union central organization in the country, the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV) and that during the same period the President of the Confederation, Mr. Antonio Ríos, was the victim of systematic slander and unfounded accusations of irresponsible conduct and corruption. This deliberate campaign created a general climate of hostility against Mr. Ríos which was at least in part the pretext for the armed attack carried out against him on 23 September 1992. The complainant points out that the Government did not provide Mr. Ríos with the necessary protection even though it was aware of the death threats which he had received. It states that after recovering from the injuries which he had suffered, Mr. Ríos was placed under house arrest, which prevented him from attending a session of the ILO Governing Body. He was subsequently transferred to the same detention centre in which the person who had carried out the attack against him is being held, thus putting Mr. Ríos in an extremely dangerous situation.
2. 492. In its communication of 13 April 1993, the ICFTU points out that the origin of the anti-trade union campaign can be traced back to the Government's liberalization and structural adjustment policy and the opposition to that policy by the CTV, which in May 1989 organized the first general strike since the restoration of democracy in Venezuela. This campaign to discredit the CTV and its President was designed to undermine the trade union movement which had shown its capacity to mobilize workers in the defence of their interests. The complainant states that in January and March of 1991, as a result of the anti-trade union campaign, Mr. Ríos was brought before the courts on the charge of having traded in his influence; in September 1992 he was detained on this charge and following the attempt against his life was once again arrested following additional accusations made to the Superior Court for the Protection of Public Property.
3. 493. Finally, the complainant refers to irregularities and acts of discrimination in the judicial proceedings against Mr. Ríos and states that he did not have the benefit of a fair and impartial trial. It specifies that in Venezuela there is political interference in the judiciary and that this is even acknowledged by those members of the judiciary who acted against Mr. Ríos. The President of the Supreme Court allegedly has admitted that sometimes there are political intentions behind the trial of a high ranking personality. Moreover, the complainant points out that members of the Superior Court for the Protection of Public Property (the judicial body responsible for the trial) allegedly received anonymous death threats in case they ruled in favour of this trade union official.
4. 494. More specifically, the complainant describes the irregularities that occurred during the judicial proceedings as the following: the changes on several occasions in the charges brought (the Attorney-General, after having charged Mr. Ríos with two different offences, centred his accusations on one of them, then subsequently formulated new accusations); the exceptional nature of the arbitrary detention (Mr. Ríos was refused conditional release and thus had to undergo prolonged detention. The Superior Court for the Protection of Public Property ordered his arrest with a view to bringing him to trial, which should have resulted in the conditional release of Mr. Ríos until the final verdict. In spite of this, the Attorney-General appealed against this decision and exceptionally, the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court accepted the appeal and ordered that Mr. Ríos remain in detention); the difference in the legal treatment of this case with respect to others (despite the extreme slowness of the judicial procedure in Venezuela, in the case of Mr. Ríos, evidence presented against the accused was examined quickly whereas the examination of the evidence presented in his favour was adjourned). In the same way, the effects of the media campaign against Mr. Ríos were felt. In these conditions, it was extremely difficult for the judicial bodies to examine this case impartially on the basis of its legal merits.

B. The Government's reply

1. 495. As regards the attempted assassination of Mr. Ríos, the Government states in its communications of 3 February and 2 July 1993 that this attack was condemned by the government authorities and that those responsible for the attack were immediately arrested by the police. The authors of the attack described themselves as members of the Bolivarian Liberation Forces and stated that the attack was part of a "dignity operation" directed against persons who had carried out acts of corruption. In the same way, the Government recognizes that there has been a campaign to discredit the image of the trade union official, Mr. Ríos, but adds that it did not participate in this campaign and that it suspended television programmes which encouraged the view that corrupt persons should be put to death.
2. 496. Furthermore, the Government provides in its communications detailed information on the supposed financial irregularities which, in the view of the Attorney-General of the Nation and a Congress deputy, had allegedly been carried out by Mr. Ríos, President of the Corporation of Production and Service Enterprises (CTV), to the detriment of the Bank of Workers of Venezuela, the Crédit Lyonnais, the Paribas Bank and Florida Cristal.
3. 497. The Government specifies that in January 1991 a complaint was lodged with the Office of the Attorney-General of the Republic by the Special Commission of the Congress of the Republic against the trade union official, Mr. Antonio Ríos, following an accusation made by a commercial finance and credit manager of the Bank of Workers of Venezuela. The Attorney-General charged Mr. Antonio Ríos, also a deputy from the Congress, with having committed offences against the public interest to the detriment of the said Bank. The Attorney-General believed that the conduct of the accused constituted the offence of trading in influence and requested the lifting of his parliamentary immunity. The Government adds that in May 1991 Mr. Ríos appealed to the Supreme Court of Justice against the accusation. Furthermore, the Government adds that on 1 July 1991 a deputy of the Congress, Mr. Padrón, accused Mr. Ríos of not only the offence of trading in influence but also of embezzlement. As a result of the accusations, the Supreme Court ordered the lifting of the parliamentary immunity of Mr. Ríos with a view to bringing legal proceedings against him in the ordinary courts for the protection of public property.
4. 498. The Government points out that in September 1992 the Superior Court for the Protection of Public Property ordered the arrest of the trade union official on the charge of having traded in his influence, but granted him provisional release. The Attorney-General appealed against the conditional release of the accused, arguing that a suspended sentence or release on bail were not applicable in the case of offences against the public interest.
5. 499. Finally, contrary to the accusation made by the Attorney-General, the Government says that it does not believe that Mr. Ríos committed the offences with which he is charged and that the accusation has been made by a prosecutor who "sees offences everywhere".

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 500. The Committee observes that the complainant in this case has alleged an attempt against the life and physical integrity of Mr. Antonio Ríos (President of the Confederation of Workers of Venezuela - CTV), his arrest on the charge of having committed different offences of a financial nature (a charge which the Government criticizes but which resulted in legal proceedings) and the waging of a campaign by the Venezuelan press to discredit the CTV.
2. 501. As regards the attempt against the life of Mr. Ríos, the Committee deeply deplores that this trade union official was injured and expresses the firm hope that such reprehensible acts do not occur again in the future. The Committee notes with interest the Government's observations that those responsible for the attack were arrested by the police. It also notes that they themselves said that they were members of the Bolivarian Liberation Forces and that the attack was part of a "dignity operation" directed against persons suspected of corruption. Since the Government recognizes that there has been a campaign against the trade union official, Mr. Ríos, including television programmes, although it rejects the allegation that it was implicated in this campaign, the Committee expresses the firm hope that in future any call to carry out acts of violence against trade union officials will be severely punished.
3. 502. More specifically, as regards the judicial proceedings against Mr. Ríos on a charge by the Attorney-General that he committed offences of trading in his influence and embezzlement, the Committee notes the observations of the Government that the normal judicial procedure was followed as a result of the accusations. The Committee observes, however, that this statement is in contradiction with the statement of the complainant organization according to which the judicial proceedings against Mr. Ríos were exceptional and discriminatory. In this respect, the Committee draws attention to the resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, adopted by the International Labour Conference on 25 June 1970, which defines as rights that are fundamental to the normal exercise of trade union rights, amongst others, the rights to freedom and security of person and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, and the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal. The Committee also draws attention to the principle that the absence of guarantees of due process of law may lead to abuses and result in trade union officials being penalized by decisions that are groundless; it may also create a climate of insecurity and fear which may affect the exercise of trade union rights (see Digest, op. cit., para. 111). Moreover, the Committee notes that the Government states that it believes that the trade union official, Mr. Antonio Ríos, did not commit the offences with which he is charged. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee expresses its deep concern that proceedings should have been taken against the trade union official concerned and that he should have been charged and arrested on the basis of unfounded accusations. The Committee can only conclude that Mr. Ríos was subjected to acts of anti-union discrimination.
4. 503. In these circumstances and bearing in mind the statements by the Government emphasizing the innocence of Mr. Ríos as well as the arbitrary detention without trial to which Mr. Ríos has been subjected, the Committee urges that Mr. Ríos be released immediately pending the final outcome of the trials. In any event, the Committee regrets that Mr. Ríos was not able to participate in some sessions of the ILO Governing Body and believes that, as far as possible and provided there is no obvious danger, it would be desirable, in accordance with the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, that legal proceedings against members of the ILO Governing Body should not prevent them from attending the sessions of the Governing Body.