Interim Report - Report No 217, June 1982

1. 609. The Committee already examined this case at its meeting in February 1982, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body. The Government sent certain additional information in a communication dated 4 May 1982.
2. 610. Bolivia 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 611. The allegations still pending in this case concern a violent death and the arrest of trade union leaders.
2. 612. More specifically, the complainants alleged that Julio Cossió Meruvia, Secretary-General of the Joint Trade Union of Mine Workers of Catavi, died on 17 August 1981 in a clinic in Oruro as a result of tortures inflicted on him, to the point of leaving him it a coma, by para-military forces of the special security service in the military headquarters of Uncia. The complainants also state that Julio Cossió Meruvia had been arrested on 8 August 1981 simply because he had been elected leader by the workers whom he had represented worthily.
3. 613. The complainants also alleged that Dionisio Huaynapaco, a peasant leader of the Bolivian Workers Central (COB) as well as the miners Raimundo Paredes, Abraham Salas, Antonio Saravia, Humberto Blanco, José Fernando Espinoza, Carlos Gonzáles, Roberto Calasich, Roberto Quisbert Navia, Victor Peralta Pios, Ricardo Garcia Camacho, Andrès Mamani and Lorenzo Oropeda were arrested for their participation in the strikes which took place at the beginning of August 1981.
4. 614. At its March 1982 Session, the Governing Body approved the interim conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, and in particular, in view of the serious nature of the allegations concerning the death of Julio Cossió Meruvia after being tortured and the arrest of a peasant leader and 12 miners for their participation in strikes which took place in August 1981, urged the Government to send its observations without delay.

B. The Government's reply

1. 615. In a communication dated 4 May 1982, the Government supplies no information on the alleged death of the trade union leader Julio Cossió Meruvia.
2. 616. Furthermore, it gives no information on the present situation of those persons who were arrested following their alleged participation in the strikes which took place in August 1981, and whose names are supplied by the complainants. In this connection, however, the Government explains that it does not have enough information available at the moment to make specific observations concerning each of the former leaders or workers mentioned by the complainants. The Government states nevertheless that the participation of the persons concerned in the illegal strikes which took place in the mining districts of Huanuni, Siglo XX, Catavi and San José at the beginning of August 1981 must be viewed as subversive activity in as far as the strikes in question were not declared in accordance with the procedure set forth in sections 105 and 106 of the Labour Code and that acts had been committed in violation of the right to freedom of work.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 617. Firstly, the Committee notes with keen regret that the Government does not supply any information on the alleged death of Julio Cossió Meruvia in a clinic of Oruro after being tortured. The Committee therefore urges the Government to supply the most precise information possible on the circumstances in which this person died and to confirm that his death did occur. In this connection, the Committee insists on the need for an independent judicial inquiry to establish the facts and assess responsibilities.
2. 618. As regards the arrest of 13 persons following their participation in the strikes at the beginning of August 1981 in the mining districts of Huanuni, Siglo XX, Catavi and San José, and whose names have been supplied by the complainants, the Committee notes the very general statement by the Government that the strikes were illegal and deemed to be of a subversive nature. The Committee notes in particular that, according to the Government, the strikers did not respect sections 105 and 106 of the labour Code and that acts were committed against the right to freedom of work.
3. 619. For its part, the Committee has examined sections 105 and 106 of the Labour Code and notes that these provisions concern conciliation and arbitration in labour disputes. It notes that the provisions relating to arbitration contained in Part X of the labour Code allow considerable restrictions to be placed on the use of strikes, and even their prohibition. In particular, section 105 stipulates that a strike movement is illegal until all means of conciliation and arbitration have been exhausted; section 113 establishes that an arbitration award shall be binding if the Executive so decides by a special order; section 114 requires e three-quarters majority of the number of workers actually employed before a strike can be declared and section 119 establishes penalty of imprisonment of between two and six months for those persons who commit acts against the freedom of employment of those trade unionists or workers who do not approve of the strike.
4. 620. The Committee has pointed out on many occasions' that the preventive detention of trade unionists on the ground that breaches of the law may have taken place in connection with a strike involves a serious danger of infringement of trade union rights. The Committee stresses once again that the right of workers and workers' organisations to strike is one of the essential means for the promotion and defence of their occupational interests. The provisions established by legislation concerning the legality of a strike should therefore be reasonable and must not constitute a restriction placed on the possible recourse to strike except as regards essential services understood in the strict sense of the term, i.e. services whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population. However, the Committee cannot consider that the mining sector as a whole to which those workers who have allegedly been imprisoned since August 1981 belong is an essential service in which the workers' right to promote and defend their interests by recourse to strikes could be prohibited. The Committee recalls furthermore that the action of peaceful strike pickets should not be impeded by the authorities.
5. 621. In these circumstances, the Committee expresses the firm hope that those persons whose names have been supplied by the complainants will, if they are still imprisoned, be released as rapidly as possible. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this matter.