Interim Report - Report No 137, 1973

97. The Committee adjourned examination of these cases at its February 1973 session (135th Report of the Committee, paragraph 9), because the Government's observations had been received too late to enable them to be examined in substance.

1. 97. The Committee adjourned examination of these cases at its February 1973 session (135th Report of the Committee, paragraph 9), because the Government's observations had been received too late to enable them to be examined in substance.
2. 98. The Committee notes the fact that in its observations on these five cases the Government refers in general terms to its position as stated by it in its communications of 29 February and 13 May 1972 with respect to the various cases pending in regard to Spain. In the first of these communications the Government, inter alia, raised objections to the effect that some of the complaints contained expressions which were offensive to the Spanish Government and that they expressed support for clandestine organisations. In the second, the Government declared itself ready to cooperate with the Committee, but once again expressed reservations on certain points to which it had already referred in its communication of 29 February 1972. The Committee recalls that in the report which it submitted to the Governing Body at its 186th Session it stated that, while being unable to agree with the reservations of the Government on certain questions of principle raised in its letter of 13 May 1972, it noted with interest the Government's statement that it was prepared to extend its co-operation (paragraph 6 of the Committee's 131st Report, approved by the Governing Body at the session in question).
3. 99. In some of the further communications sent by the Government with regard to these five cases it repeats its objections to the effect that some of the complaints contain offensive expressions or are based on documents emanating from organisations which are non-existent under Spanish law. In this connection, the Committee wishes to point out once again that it can assume no responsibility for the terms in which complaints are presented to it, but that respect for itself and for the task entrusted to it calls for the observance of the proprieties appropriate to the procedure followed and that the use of language calculated to embitter rather than to elucidate controversy should be avoided.
4. 100. In a more general way, the Government states in its various communications that, as further proof of its desire to cooperate, it is supplying voluntarily certain information in order to make the facts clear, on the understanding that, as repeatedly stated by the Committee, "the fact that a government replies to a request for information on a specific complaint does not imply that the government recognises the accuracy or - even less - the validity of the complaint but merely that it is co-operating with the Committee and with the Governing Body".
5. 101. Spain has not ratified either the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Case No. 657
  102. 102 Although the Committee has always followed the principle laid down by the Governing Body that it is entitled to exercise its discretion in deciding whether or not a body is to be regarded as an industrial association, no real question of receivability arises in this case since certain allegations which had first been submitted by the Catalan Workers' Solidarity in January 1971 were subsequently taken up by the World Confederation of Labour, which is an organisation having consultative status with the ILO. It is alleged that in January 1971 the trade unionists Fermin Munoz Fernández, Juan José Martinez Aguilar and Victor Serrano were arrested for having taken part in a strike at the Harry Walker undertaking in Barcelona. According to the complainants these workers and other employees of the undertaking had attended meetings to discuss labour problems at which a majority of the workers present took a decision to call a strike in support of their claims (for higher wages, the suspension of fines and an easing of the pace of work). They add that the official Trade Union Organisation backed the undertaking, that the police violently expelled the workers from the factory premises and that a number of workers were dismissed.
  103. 103 In its communication of 13 February 1973 the Government states that one of the persons to whom this case refers was acquitted by a judgement handed down on 20 December 1971 while the others benefited at the appropriate time from the application of the amnesty decree of 23 September 1971, with the result that all these persons are now entirely at liberty.
  104. 104 The Committee observes that the persons mentioned in the allegations have recovered their freedom, but regrets that the Government has neither supplied full information on the various facts alleged, which, according to the complainants, were connected with labour claims, nor specified the grounds on which the arrests were made.
  105. 105 In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note of the fact that the persons arrested are now entirely at liberty, but to express its regret that the Government has failed to supply detailed information, in the absence of which it is impossible for the Committee and the Governing Body to reach conclusions on the allegations made in full knowledge of the facts.
• Case No. 679
  106. 106 The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions presented a complaint on 14 September 1971 in which it alleged that the worker Pedro Patiño had been murdered by the police while distributing leaflets among other construction workers on strike for better wages and recognition of freedom of association. The World Confederation of Labour submitted a complaint on 17 September 1971 on the same matter, adding that many workers had been arrested on account of the strike. The World Federation of Trade Unions presented a complaint in its turn on 24 September 1971, alleging that Pedro Patiño had been shot in the back while distributing leaflets, that another worker had been wounded in the leg and that several leading members of the Workers' Committees had been arrested.
  107. 107 By a communication dated 28 October 1971, the ICFTU supplied certain documents by way of information in substantiation of the complaint. The ICFTU also stated in the same communication that on 17 September 1971 a bill of indictment had been issued against fourteen workers charged with the offence of sedition under sections 218 et seq of the Penal Code. The complaining organisation claimed that a strike of an occupational nature was still deemed to constitute the offence of sedition and that it was on these grounds that the Public order Court had issued the bill of indictment in question.
  108. 108 The text of a leaflet supplied by the ICFTU is primarily concerned with labour claims. One report sent by the ICFTU indicates, in regard to the circumstances of Pedro Patiño's death, that on 13 September 1971, while Mr. Patiño and three other workers were talking to building workers, a police car arrived, whereupon they fled without heeding the police order to stop. The police opened fire on the workers, killing Mr. Patiño. The other three, one of whom was wounded, were arrested. Another report sent by the ICFTU is couched in similar terms and adds that Mr. Patiño's widow, when identifying the body at the hospital, pulled back the sheet covering him, "so that the body was fully uncovered. Both she and the doctor accompanying her were thus able to see that the front of the body was quite free of blood and that there were no signs of a wound. The blood had flowed from the back of the body, staining the under sheet". The report further states that the deceased's family were not permitted to exercise their right to designate medical practitioners to assist with the autopsy.
  109. 109 In its communication of 9 February 1973 the Government states that the Spanish authorities were the first to regret the incident which led to the death of Pedro Patiño. To ascertain the causes which gave rise to this incident and determine liability, the competent judicial body immediately carried out the necessary inquiry. The Government concludes its remarks by stating that the proceedings were terminated as no grounds were found for laying charges.
  110. 110 In view of the detailed information supplied by the complainants, according to which, during a strike in support of labour claims, one worker was killed and another wounded by the police, and a number of workers were arrested and charged with the offence of sedition, and taking into account the statement made by the Government, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
       • (a) to request the Government to supply details concerning the inquiry into the death of Pedro Patiño and the text of the decision to terminate the proceedings together with the reasons given therefor;
       • (b) to request the Government to supply information concerning the arrests made, the proceedings brought against the arrested persons and their outcome, together with the text of the judgement handed down and the grounds adduced therefor.
  111. Case No. 684
  111. 111 On 21 October 1971 the International Metalworkers' Federation presented a complaint containing allegations of police intervention in respect of employees of the firm of SEAT in Barcelona, of whom many were said to have been arrested and some wounded by the authorities. The World Confederation of Labour, in a communication dated 26 October 1971, referred to the strike which had taken place in the undertaking in question, the fact that the police had opened fire on the workers and the fact that about twenty of them had been brought before the courts.
  112. 112 In a communication dated 8 February 1973, the Government states that the incidents which occurred at the firm of SEAT in Barcelona in October 1971 were sparked off by subversive agitators unconnected with the undertaking, trained and subsidised from abroad, who insinuated themselves into its premises, even going so far as to attack the doorkeepers. These agitators, continues the Government, provoked grave disturbances of the peace as a result of which a number of people were injured and wounded. The Government concludes its remarks by stating that legal proceedings have been initiated in respect of the acts committed by the persons who caused these disturbances of the peace, and that all the persons to whom this case refers have been provisionally released.
  113. 113 Since legal proceedings have been initiated in respect of the matters referred to in the complaints, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
       • (a) to take note of the fact that the persons arrested have been provisionally released;
       • (b) to request the Government to supply the text of the judgement handed down, together with the grounds adduced therefor.
  114. Case No. 697
  114. 114 On 14 April 1972 the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions presented a complaint in which it alleged that as a result of acts of solidarity with workers who had been persecuted on account of strikes in the Michelin factory in Vitoria, the following six workers had been arrested and were to be brought before the Public Order Tribunal: Maria Cristina Valverde, Maria Inés Dueñas and Josefina Anguiana Alfonso, held in the prison of Vitoria, and Justiniano Baranda Otero, Blanca Pera Sarasda and Alicia Ayala Velasco, held in the prison of Beasaín, in Bilbao.
  115. 115 In a communication dated 6 February 1973, the Government states that none of the persons to whom reference is made is now in custody.
  116. 116 It is not clear from the Government's reply what the position of these persons is as regards the taking of legal proceedings, and the Committee accordingly recommends the Governing Body:
       • (a) to take note of the fact that the persons mentioned in the complaint are now at liberty;
       • (b) to request the Government to state whether legal proceedings are pending against these persons, and, if so, with what offences they have been charged.
  117. Case No. 704
  117. 117 On 27 June 1972 the World Federation of Trade Unions presented a complaint in which it alleged that the trade unionists Marcelino Camacho, Nicolás Sartorio and Eduardo Saborido and the worker priest Francisco Garcia had been arrested. The Trade Unions International of Workers in the Metal Industry also referred, in a communication dated 19 January 1973, to the arrest of Marcelino Camacho and nine of his comrades, alleging that the charges laid against these persons were typical examples of the way trade union rights are infringed in Spain. The World Federation of Trade Unions, to which the Trade Unions International is affiliated, announced on 25 January 1973 that it supported this complaint and requested that it be regarded as its own.
  118. 118 In a communication dated 6 February 1973, the Government states that the persons referred to in the original complaint were arrested on account of their repeated subversive activities, and placed at the disposal of the competent judicial authority. According to the Government, one of the accused was further charged with the offence of forging an official document, as he was found to be in possession of a counterfeit national identity document bearing his photograph. The relevant judicial proceedings are still pending in the courts. The Government concludes its remarks by declaring that any interference in the matter on the part of the Spanish governmental authorities would be contrary to the principle of the independence of the courts of justice. By a further communication dated 8 May 1973 the Government stated that the judicial proceedings had been delayed because some of the defence lawyers had given up their defence and the accused had to instruct new lawyers.
  119. 119 On many occasions', where allegations that trade unionists had been arrested or detained on account of trade union activities have been met by governments merely with denials or with statements that the arrests or detentions have been carried out because of subversive activities or crimes under ordinary law, or for reasons of internal security, the Committee has always followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to supply further information, which should be as precise as possible, concerning the arrests or detentions and, in particular, the legal proceedings initiated and their outcome, so as to enable the Committee to have all the facts before it when examining the allegations.
  120. 120 In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to supply information as to the exact grounds for the arrest of the persons referred to in the complaint and, in particular, as to the acts which were deemed to justify the taking of such action, as well as the text of the judgement in the case, as soon as it is pronounced, together with the grounds adduced therefor.