Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 103, 1968

1. 59. The Committee examined this case at its meeting held in November 1967. On that occasion the Committee submitted an interim report containing a number of conclusions and a request for additional information from the Government; that report was approved by the Governing Body at its 170th Session (November 1967).
2. 60. This request was transmitted to the Government by a letter dated 21 November 1967 to which the Government replied by a communication of 8 January 1968.
3. 61. 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

1. 62. Essentially, the complainants alleged that certain acts committed by the police on the instructions of the Government of the Province of Antioquia constituted a violation of the trade union rights of the members of the Antioquia Teachers' Association and of the other trade union organisations who were conducting a general strike in Antioquia. In particular, the complainants referred to the suppression of a trade union meeting; to the entering and closing down of the headquarters of the Teachers' Association; to the fact that the headquarters of the Acción Sindical Antioqueña (A.S.A.) had been broken into and surrounded by assault troops of the military police; and to the detention of Messrs. Agudelo, Carbajal, Herrera, Cano and Rivera, all leading trade union members.
2. 63. At its meeting in November 1967 the Committee noted the Government's observation that the strike of the teachers, who were by definition public employees in Colombian law and as such possessed no right to strike, was illegal from the start and therefore liable to police intervention a With regard to the arrest of Messrs. Agudelo, Carbajal and Cano, the Committee noted that these persons were arrested on the ground of causing disturbances and that they had been released after eight days' detention.
3. 64. As the Committee pointed out in paragraph 531 of its 101st Report, it has always held that allegations relating to the right to strike are not outside its competence in so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights. In this connection the Committee recalled that, when considering the observations of the Government in previous cases possessing similar or comparable features, it had stressed the importance it attaches, where strikes are prohibited or are subject to restrictions in essential services or in the civil service, to the establishment of adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the workers who are thus deprived of an essential means of defending their occupational interests. Accordingly, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to draw the Government's attention to the importance attached by the Governing Body and the Committee to these considerations.
4. 65. Noting, however, that the Government had not furnished its observations on the remaining allegations referred to in paragraph 62 above, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to present its observations thereon.
5. 66. In its reply of 8 January 1968 the Government explains that Messrs. Herrera and Rivera were arrested for the same reasons as were Messrs. Agudelo, Carbajal and Cano and that they were all subsequently released at the same time.
6. 67. The Government further states that the headquarters of the teachers' trade union were not closed down but were put under close supervision by the police, who for the same reason entered the premises of the headquarters of the Acción Sindical Antioqueña. These measures were carried out, the Government states, for the purpose of preserving public order and in accordance with the proper procedure laid down for police action in such cases.
7. 68. On the basis of the Government's statement referred to in paragraph 66 above, it appears that all the trade union leaders who had been detained in connection with the strike were released. The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to take note of the Government's statement and to decide that in these circumstances no further purpose would be served in pursuing the examination of the allegations concerning the detention of the trade union leaders.
8. 69. With regard to the entering of the premises of the Acción Sindical Antioqueña headquarters by the police, the Committee wishes to recall that in several previous cases, while recognising that trade unions, like other associations or persons, cannot claim immunity from search of their premises, the Committee has nonetheless 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.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 70. In the present case the Committee considers that it does not necessarily follow, from the information before the Committee, that the police action was carried out on the basis of the authority of a search warrant. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note of the Government's reply referred to in paragraph 67 above and to draw the Government's attention to the principle mentioned in paragraph 69.