Informe provisional - Informe núm. 110, 1969

1. 147. The Committee previously examined this case at its session in May 1968, when it submitted to the Governing Body the conclusions contained in paragraphs 289 to 301 of its 105th Report. The Committee reached definitive conclusions on one aspect of the case, namely the allegations relating to the repression of trade unions, and decided to recommend the Governing Body to request the Government to supply its observations on the other aspect of the case, which concerned the sentencing and detention of certain persons.
2. 148. These conclusions were approved by the Governing Body at its 172nd Session (May-June 1968) and were transmitted to the Government in a communication dated 10 June 1968. The Government replied in a letter dated 13 January 1969.
3. 149. Indonesia has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 150. The complainants alleged that in pursuance of its policy of repression of trade unions the Government had arrested some 55,000 persons. Particular reference was made to the arrest and sentencing to death of Mr. Njono, former President of the Indonesian trade union organisation SOBS[ and former Vice-President of the World Federation of Trade Unions, and to the unknown fate of Mr. Sudarno Heru, a member of the Administrative Committee of the Trade Unions International of Workers of the Building, Wood and Building Materials Industries and a leader of the building and irrigation workers in Indonesia.
2. 151. Having received no observations from the Government relating specifically to Mr. Njono or Mr. Heru, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish, as a matter of urgency, its observations relating to the cases of these two persons.
3. 152. In its communication of 13 January 1969 the Government states that it " does not consider it necessary to give additional clarification to its note of 5 April 1968, rejecting the allegations of infringements of trade union rights and denial of democratic freedom in Indonesia ". It goes on to reaffirm its position with regard to the dissolution of the trade union organisation SOBSI, namely that this organisation, having been incriminated in the abortive coup d'état of 30 September 1965, was dissolved in accordance with the Constitution and prevailing law. More generally, the Government confirms its adherence to the right of freedom of association as provided for in its Constitution, and indicates that there are several trade union organisations operating in full freedom in Indonesia. The Government states, in this respect, that " this should not bear prejudice to the fact that the Government of Indonesia considers it its full right to dissolve or to deny the existence of any organisation, political or trade union, which has engaged in activities detrimental to the security of the State and will reject any outside interference in the exercise of this right ".
4. 153. With regard more specifically to the cases of Mr. Njono and Mr. Sudarno Heru, the Government supplies the following information: " Njono and other leaders of SOBSI, who were concurrently members of the Politbureau (PKI), were tried by an open court in which they were provided all the safeguards for their defence due to them by law. They were found guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the legal Government of Indonesia by force and sentenced to death and other penalties according to their involvement and role in the coup (see court proceedings of Njono, published by P. T. Pembimbing Masa, Djakarta, 1966). It is therefore obvious that their detention and sentencing were based on their illegal political activities endangering the existence of the State and have nothing to do with their trade union activities. "

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 154. The Committee notes that in its first communication, dated 5 April 1968, the Government made no reference to Mr. Njono and Mr. Heru and that in its communication of 13 January 1969 it stated that " Njono and other leaders of SOBSI " were found guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the legal Government of Indonesia by force and were sentenced to death and other penalties according to their involvement and role in the coup. Thus the Government has so far made no mention whatsoever in its communications of Mr. Sudarno Heru, who was referred to specifically in the letter dated 4 October 1967 from the Trade Unions International of Workers of the Building, Wood and Building Materials Industries, in which it was stated that Mr. Heru's fate was not yet known to the organisation in question; and with regard to Mr. Njono the Government has merely supplied the general indications set out above.
2. 155. The Committee therefore must again point out, as it did when last examining the case, and as it has done in several other cases in which governments appeared to maintain that a reply in general terms to the effect that the detentions of trade unionists have been due to unlawful or subversive activity and not to trade union activities should be regarded as adequately substantiated, that the question as to whether the matter in respect of which sentences have been imposed or detentions ordered is to be regarded as a matter relating to a criminal or political offence or a matter relating to the exercise of trade union rights is not one which can be determined unilaterally by the government concerned in such a manner as to prevent the Governing Body from inquiring further into it. At its session in May 1968 the Committee also recalled the principle laid down in the procedure for the examination of complaints of alleged infringements of trade union rights that, where precise allegations are made, the Committee cannot regard as satisfactory replies from governments which are confined to generalities.
3. 156. The Committee recalls that the allegations in respect of Mr. Njono were that he had been sentenced to death and that his request for a reprieve had been refused. It notes that the Government, which was requested by a communication of 10 June 1968 to supply its observations on the cases of Mr. Njono and Mr. Heru as a matter of urgency, questions involving human life and personal freedom being at issue, replied only on 13 January 1968. The Committee has moreover taken note of certain reports in the international press from which it appears that Mr. Njono was probably executed in October 1968.
4. 157. In these circumstances the Committee can only regret that the Government has not seen fit to co-operate fully with the Committee by the prompt supply of detailed information relating to Mr. Njono and Mr. Heru. In this connection the Committee wishes to recall that in its First Report it stated that the purpose of the procedure for the examination of complaints of alleged infringements of trade union rights " is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact, and the Committee is confident that, if it protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognise the importance for the protection of their own good name of formulating for objective examination detailed factual replies to such detailed factual charges as may be put forward ".