Interim Report - Report No 78, 1965

1. 126. The Committee last examined this case in its 76th Report, which was adopted by the Governing Body at its 159th Session (June-July 1964). This report contained a series of recommendations in paragraph 299, and two questions (the allegations concerning arrests arising out of the 1962 strikes and the allegations concerning the 1963 strikes) were left pending. The Government sent in its observations on these points in a letter dated 14 October 1964.

Allegations concerning Arrests Arising out of the 1962 Strikes

1. 127. The Committee recalls that, of the 47 persons sentenced in connection with the 1962 strikes, 37 were released under various amnesty measures and that, of the remaining ten, according to information supplied by the Government on 10 February 1964, six might be set free by the beginning of 1965. On 29 April 1964 the Government supplied a copy of Decree No. 786/1964 granting a general amnesty which would affect the ten persons in question.
2. 128. In view of the contents of this decree the Committee recommended the Governing Body, in paragraph 299 of its 76th Report:
3. ......................................................................................................................................................
4. (a) with regard to the allegations relating to arrests and deportations as a result of the strikes of 1962, to take note of the further amnesty decreed by the Spanish Government and to request the Government to inform the Governing Body of the manner in which the ten convicted persons have been affected by the decree.
5. ......................................................................................................................................................
6. 129. In its latest communication, dated 14 October 1964, the Government supplies a list of the ten individuals in question, with details in each case of the sentence and reductions in it under various amnesty measures. According to this statement six of the convicted persons have now been set free. Of the remaining four Mr. Gregorio Rodriguez Gordon still has seven years' imprisonment to serve since the reductions in his sentence under two amnesty decrees; the sentences on Messrs. Ramón Ormazábal Tife and Antonio Jiménez Pericas were reduced under earlier amnesties, but neither man has applied to benefit by the amnesty ordered by Decree No. 786 dated 1 April 1964; finally, Mr. Agustin Ibarrola Goicoechea did not apply to benefit by either the 1963 or the 1964 amnesty.
7. 130. The Committee observes that, of the 47 persons sentenced in connection with the 1962 strikes, 37 were subsequently set free and ultimately so were an additional six, leaving four persons still actually in prison.
8. 131. Accordingly the Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note of the foregoing information, and requests the Government to be good enough to keep it informed about any measures that may be taken in the case of Mr. Gregorio Rodriguez Gordon, Mr. Ramón Ormazábal Tife, Mr. Antonio Jiménez Pericas and Mr. Agustin Ibarrola Goicoechea.
9. Allegations concerning the 1963 Strikes
10. 132. In paragraph 288 of its 76th Report the Committee analysed the allegations made in the joint letter dated 8 October 1963 from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (I.C.F.T.U.) and the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions (I.F.C.T.U.) on which the Government had not made any detailed observations. This letter described the ill-treatment and torture alleged to have been inflicted on Rafael González, Silvino Zapico and his wife, Vicente Marañaga, Alfonso Braña and his wife, Antonio Zapico, Jerónimo Fernández Terente, Jesús Ramos Talavera, Everardo Castro, Tina Martinez, Juan Alberdi and others. It is alleged that the first named died as a result of his tortures. The complainants also state that firms not affected by the strikes which hired workers who had taken part in them were fined 1,000 pesetas the first time, 6,000 pesetas the second time and were closed down the third time. The complainants state that this information was taken from a letter from about 100 intellectuals to the Minister of Information and Tourism; a copy of this letter was attached.
11. 133. The Committee recommended the Governing Body, in paragraph 299 of its 76th Report:
12. ......................................................................................................................................................
13. (e).................................................................................................................................................
14. (1) also to express its regret that the Government has not replied to the complaint dated 8 October 1963 and to urge the Government to do so with the shortest possible delay.
15. ......................................................................................................................................................
16. 134. In its communication dated 14 October 1964 the Government reproduces its letter of 31 October 1963, which in turn referred to an earlier letter dated 19 October 1963 containing general observations on the complaint submitted by the I.C.F.T.U and I.F.C.T.U on 24 September 1963. The Government states that it must particularly emphasise its earlier remarks about a procedure which tends to use Case No. 294 as a pretext for keeping a question artificially alive which is, in fact, a thing of the past. Even if the alleged occurrences had taken place they would have had to be investigated and proved by courts of law under the relevant Spanish legislation, which affords ample access to the courts and every safeguard to ensure that justice is done (section 101 of the Criminal Indictment Act, 1882). Even if there were any truth in the allegations there is a definite procedure for ascertaining the facts and ensuring that the law is enforced. In the communication dated 19 October 1963 to which the Government refers it states that it cannot agree that a mere catalogue of rumours should form the basis for one of the Committee's cases.
17. 135. The Committee observes that even though the complaint by the I.C.F.T.U and I.F.C.T.U dated 24 September 1963 only refers to various acts of persecution and violence arising out of a labour dispute, without supplying any further details about the persons injured thereby, the additional information supplied in the letter of 8 October 1963 gives a number of details such as the names of the persons alleged to have been ill-treated and tortured (one of whom is stated to have died as a result), together with the assertion that action was taken against firms which hired workers who had been taking part in the strikes. The Government makes no observation about these allegations.
18. 136. The Government states, on the other hand, that the occurrences mentioned in the allegations would have had to be investigated by courts of law in accordance with Spanish legislation and that these courts would ensure that justice was done if the law had been broken. In other cases the Committee has pointed out that, while in view of the nature of its responsibilities, it cannot consider itself bound by any rule that national procedures of redress must be exhausted such as appeals, for instance, to international claims tribunals, it must have regard, in examining the merits of a case, to the fact that a national remedy before an independent tribunal whose procedure offers appropriate guarantees has not been pursued.
19. 137. The Committee observes that, in cases where it has decided to reject complaints in accordance with those principles, governments have supplied detailed information about the allegations in question, which have enabled it to judge to what extent the fact that the persons concerned have not availed themselves of the opportunities open to them justified the Committee in not continuing its examination of their cases. In this instance the Government has not made any specific observation about the detailed allegations made by the complainants. Furthermore, the allegations deal partly with occurrences which should have led to public action on the part of the authorities and partly with statutory provisions against which appeals to the courts might not be possible.
20. 138. In these circumstances the Committee considers that, in order to reach any conclusion, it needs further information from the Government with regard to the allegations, and it accordingly recommends the Governing Body to ask the Government once more to forward its detailed observations on the specific allegations made by the complainants concerning the 1963 strikes.