Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 208, Junio 1981

1. 163. The Federation of Municipal workers of Peru presented its complaint in a communication dated 14 May 1980, and the Government replied in a letter dated 17 March 1981.
2. 164. Peru has ratified both 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. Allegations of the complainant

1. 165. The Federation of Municipal Workers of Peru alleges that, during the strike in Lima, of May 1980, called for professional reasons - a salary increase, reinstatement of some of its members, full application of the collective agreement in force and payment of salaries for the days on strike - the police disrupted by violent means a peaceful meeting at the trade union premises, whereby killing three workers and seriously wounding others.

B. Reply of the Government

1. 166. In its communication of 17 March 1981, the Government denies the accusations made against it. It remarks that according to the Ministry of Interior's report (which the Government has appended to its communication) drawn up by the Civil Guard (Emergency Squadron), at the time of the incident, the workers in question were far from conducting a peaceful meeting. Instead it was of violent and agitated, purely political character, bearing no relation to trade union matters, thereby causing disorder and disturbing public peace. The Government also states that one worker, and not three, as alleged by the complainant, was killed, and that he was shot by a gun of small calibre, not by the kind of gun carried by the Civil Guard (which is of different calibre).

C. Conclusions of the Committee

1. 167. In the first place, as regards the violent incidents which occurred on the occasion of the meeting at the trade union premises during a strike, the Committee deplores the seriousness of the incident, particularly regarding the loss of life.
2. 168. The Committee notes that there is a clear contradiction between the complainant's allegations and the Government's reply concerning the developments and outcome of the events. It does not consider it has sufficient information at its disposal to enable it to decide if any violations of trade union rights took place.
3. 169. The Committee would also wish, in general, to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that intervention by security forces should be limited to the maintenance of public order.
4. 170. The Committee observes that the report supplied by the Government, concerning the investigation of the incidents in question, was drawn up by the Civil Guard, i.e. conducted by the Ministry of the Interior itself. In this respect, the Committee would wish, in general, to recall the principle, as it has already done on previous occasions, that in cases in which the dispersal of public meetings by the police for reasons of public order or other similar reasons, has involved a loss of life, it has attached special importance to the circumstances being fully investigated by an immediate and independent special inquiry and to the regular legal procedure being followed to determine the justification and responsibility for the action taken by the police. In this case it seems that no independent judicial investigation took place.
5. 171. The Committee can only express its concern at these incidents. In cases involving the loss of life of trade unionists the Committee has stressed the need to carry out a full and impartial inquiry in order to elucidate the facts and determine responsibility.
6. 172. The Committee would request the Government, as it has already done on other occasions, to institute as soon as possible, if it has not already done so, an independent judicial inquiry with a view to elucidating the facts in full and determining responsibilities given that, according to the Government, the inquiry was carried out by the Ministry of the Interior. The Committee asks the Government to inform it of the results of the judicial inquiry.