Informe provisional - Informe núm. 103, 1968

1. 208. The Committee examined this case at its meeting in November 1967 and submitted to the Governing Body an interim report which is to be found in paragraphs 453 to 471 of the Committee's 101st Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 170th Session (November 1967).
2. 209. The complaints alleged that trade union premises had been broken into, that a number of trade union leaders had been arbitrarily arrested, and that legal personality had been denied to the Trade Union Confederation of Workers of Colombia (C.S.T.C.). In its 101st Report the Committee submitted its final conclusions with regard to the arrest of trade unionists, and recommended the Governing Body to request the Government for further observations in respect of the other two aspects of the case.
3. 210. By a communication dated 5 January 1968 the Government has answered the request for further observations.
4. 211. Colombia has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Forced Entry of Trade Union Premises
  212. 212 In its communication of 3 April 1967 the W.F.T.U claimed that on 10 March 1967 extensive acts of repression had been carried out against the workers' and people's movement on the pretext of alleged subversion. The W.F.T.U alleged that the offices of the depart mental trade union federations and of many local unions had been broken into, their files and libraries ransacked and even some legal documents confiscated.
  213. 213 In its communication of 5 January 1968 the Government declares that the inviolability of the domicile is guaranteed in Colombia, but not as an absolute right, since in cases where it is presumed that proof may be found for criminal proceedings, particularly during a state of siege, premises may be broken into so long as " police regulations " are complied with. This is what happened, continues the Government, in the case of certain offices of trade union federations and trade unions " on account of the subversion that is going on in the countryside, supported in the cities by Colombian and foreign subjects who spread subversive orders and propaganda and provide information and contact between the various armed groups ". The Government affirms that the regulations in force were complied with and that the only purpose of the searches was to seek evidence which would guide the Government in its protective activities. It adds that the assertion that legal documents were confiscated is completely untrue.
  214. 214 The information supplied by the complainants and by the Government is therefore contradictory as regards the reason for the searches. The complainants contend that they were acts of repression against " the workers' and people's movement " while according to the Government they were for the purpose of investigating unlawful activities connected with a subversive movement. It would appear from the Government's reply that members of the organisations whose premises were broken into were suspected of being implicated in these activities and that the searches were carried out during a state of siege in compliance with the regulations in force.
  215. 215 The Committee has always considered that measures of a purely political nature, such as a state of siege, are matters which are outside the Committee's terms of reference except in so far as they may have an impact on trade union rights.
  216. 216 At its present session, in respect of another case concerning Colombia, the Committee has pointed out that in previous cases, while recognising that trade unions, like other associations or persons, cannot claim immunity from search of their premises, the Committee has emphasised the importance that it attaches to the principle that search should only be made following the issue of a warrant by the ordinary judicial authority after that authority has been satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for supposing that evidence exists on the said premises material to a prosecution for an offence against the law and provided that the search is restricted to the purposes for which the warrant was issued.
  217. 217 In the present case the extent to which the actions of the police were in conformity with the principle set forth in paragraph 216 above is not clear from the information supplied by the Government. The Government does not state, for example, what the regulations are which govern such action during a state of siege.
  218. 218 Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the complainants, for their part, have failed to supply more detailed evidence in substantiation of their allegation that searches were carried out in an arbitrary and irregular manner, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide-subject to the reservation that the principle set forth in paragraph 216 above should be observed-that no useful purpose would be served by pursuing its examination of this aspect of the case.
• Allegations relating to the Denial of Legal Personality to the C.S.T.C.
  219. 219 The complainants alleged that, by Resolution No. 0475 of 14 March 1967, the Ministry of Labour had denied legal personality to the Trade Union Confederation of Workers of Colombia (C.S.T.C.), in defiance of the provisions of the national Constitution and of the right of trade union organisations to establish Confederations.
  220. 220 According to the complainants, the C.S.T.C had first requested the granting of legal personality in May 1964 at the time of its constituent congress. This request was refused by the Government two years later when the C.S.T.C repeated it at its second congress in July 1966. The complainants claimed that all the legal conditions had been fulfilled, including the communication to the Ministry of Labour of all the necessary documentation. In the opinion of the complainants the real reason for the denial of legal personality to the C.S.T.C was based on ideological considerations, and in particular on information supplied by the political police.
  221. 221 In its reply, examined by the Committee at its November 1967 Session, the Government declared that legal personality had been denied to the C.S.T.C, firstly, because the requirements of section 422 of the Labour Code had not been fulfilled and, secondly, because its proposed by-laws infringed section 417 of the Code. It further drew attention to the statement in Resolution No. 0475 that, according to reports from the state security services, the aims of the C.S.T.C were inconsistent with the functions recognised by law as being appropriate to trade unions and were obviously incompatible with section 379 (d) of the Labour Code, which prohibits trade unions of any type from promoting or supporting campaigns or movements with a view to the disregard, either collectively or through individual members, of legal precepts or action taken by the legitimate authorities. The resolution also states that certain members of the Executive and of member organisations of the C.S.T.C were in detention on suspicion of activities contrary to law and order.
  222. 222 In view of the apparent contradiction between the complainants' assertions and the Government's observations, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government for more detailed information on the infringement of sections 417 and 422 of the Labour Code by the C.S.T.C and on the various activities which, according to Resolution No. 0475, constituted an additional justification for the refusal to grant legal personality to the C.S.T.C.
  223. 223 In its communication of 5 January 1968 the Government considers that it is enough to inform the I.L.O that an appeal against the resolution in question is at present before the Council of State, which may quash the resolution if it finds a legal flaw in it. The Government explains that the Council of State, the supreme judicial body in administrative disputes, is absolutely independent of the Government, since it appoints its own members as vacancies arise and the Government has no say whatsoever in these appointments, and since the Councillors are secure in their posts by virtue of the Constitution.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 224. The problem facing the Committee in the present instance concerns the generally accepted principle that workers' organisations shall have the right to establish and join federations and Confederations, and the principle that the acquisition of legal personality by workers' organisations, federations and Confederations shall not be made subject to conditions of such a nature as to restrict the exercise of this right.
2. 225. The Committee has taken the view in other cases that 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.
3. 226. Nevertheless, considering that in the present case the Council of State's ruling as to the legality of the measure taken by the authorities may make available information which will be of assistance to it in its examination of the matter, the Committee, as it has done in earlier similar cases, recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to supply the text of the ruling and the reasons adduced therein, as soon as it is pronounced, and in the meantime to postpone its examination of this aspect of the case.