Informe provisional - Informe núm. 321, Junio 2000

1. 374. The Committee examined this complaint at its November 1999 meeting and presented an interim report (see 318th Report, paras. 372-384). The Government's observations were subsequently received in a communication dated 24 January 2000.
2. 375. Panama 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. 376. At its November 1999 meeting, the Committee observed that in the present case the complainant alleged that 25 trade unionists from the Single National Union of Workers of the Construction Industry and Related Occupations (SUNTRACS) had been detained following a peaceful demonstration during a strike, that the union's premises had been raided and that some of the detainees had been ill-treated and held in inhuman conditions.
2. 377. The Government denied that the demonstration was peaceful and stated that demonstrators had destroyed or damaged property, committed acts of violence, tried to prevent other workers from working normally, prevented free movement by blocking roads and showed gross disrespect to the Mayor of Colón. In this regard, the Committee noted that, according to the Government, the acts of violence had taken place after the Aribesa company had dismissed five workers and decided subsequently - citing as a reason the stoppage of construction work which occurred immediately afterwards - to dismiss all the workers, and that the union regarded this action as a violation of the collective agreement and the accords signed with the company. The Committee emphasized that, although a number of trade unionists had been fined and/or sentenced to five days' detention by a court for the reasons indicated (and all of them had now been released), the company's decision to dismiss all the workers - which according to the Government's statements had not yet been implemented - seemed excessive. Lastly, the Committee noted that the Government had not replied to the allegations concerning the raid of SUNTRACS premises and the ill-treatment and inhuman conditions suffered by a number of SUNTRACS members during their detention.
3. 378. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee formulated the following recommendations (see 318th Report, para. 384):
4. The Committee appeals to the Government to mediate between the parties (the trade union SUNTRACS and the company Aribesa) with a view to resolving the problem of alleged failures to comply with the legislation and the collective agreement cited by the union as well as the problem of the dismissals.
5. Noting that the Government has not replied to the allegations concerning the raid of SUNTRACS premises and the ill-treatment and inhuman conditions suffered by a number of SUNTRACS members, the Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the matter.
6. B. The Government's reply
7. 379. In its communication of 24 January 2000 the Government, which took office on 1 September 1999, i.e. after the events at issue in this case, states that it carried out an extremely thorough investigation of the case. It asserts that the labour dispute which arose between a group of workers of SUNTRACS and the Aribesa enterprise was settled within the legal parameters laid down by the Labour Code and that there is no indication that any violations of human rights were committed against the workers during the time they were detained in police facilities and placed at the disposal of the Mayor of the District of Colón.
8. 380. The Government states further that the General Secretariat of the Mayor's Office of the District of Colón has no record of any indictment of Mr. Marcos Andrades, Mr. Javier Méndez, Mr. Julio E. Trejos, Mr. Juan C. Solar, Mr. Luis Alejandro De La Rosa, Mr. Darío Melle, Mr. Efraín Ballesteros, Mr. Martín Montaño, Mr. Aníbal Alvarado, Mr. Luis González, Mr. Tomás Mendoza and Mr. Fernando Tlubet, neither is there any record of their having been detained or arrested, much less subjected to ill-treatment or inhuman conditions by the national police.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 381. The Committee notes that the Government replies in very general terms that the labour dispute which arose between the Single National Union of Workers of the Construction Industry and Related Occupations (SUNTRACS) and the construction enterprise Aribesa was settled in accordance with law. Deplorings that it has not provided more specific information on the nature of the settlement and, more particularly, concerning the dismissal, the Committee requests the Government to provide more precise information on the settlement of the labour dispute between the SUNTRACS trade union and the Aribesa enterprise and, more particularly, concerning whether the dismissed workers have been reinstated.
2. 382. The Committee further observes that once again the Government has not provided information concerning the raid on the SUNTRACS premises. In this respect, it recalls that the right of the inviolability of trade union premises also necessarily implies that the public authorities may not insist on entering such premises without prior authorization or without having obtained a legal warrant to do so (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 175). The Committee accordingly once again urges the Government to send as soon as possible more detailed observations concerning the raid on the premises of the SUNTRACS trade union.
3. 383. Concerning the allegations of detentions and ill-treatment, the Committee observes that, in asserting that the General Secretariat of the Mayor's Office of Colón has no record of any indictment of the workers detained during the demonstration held on 20 January 1998, or of their having been detained or arrested, the Government contradicts its previous reply in the matter. The Government itself had sent on 25 May 1999 "a copy of the judicial ruling which fined Mr. Javier Méndez and Mr. Marcos Andrades ... for damaging property" (318th Report of the Committee, para. 379). In this respect, the Committee recalls that in cases of alleged torture or ill-treatment while in detention, governments should carry out inquiries into complaints of this kind so that appropriate measures, including compensation for damages suffered and sanctioning of those responsible, are taken to ensure that no detainee is subjected to such treatment (see Digest, op. cit., para. 57). The Committee accordingly requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that an independent inquiry is carried out urgently into the allegations of ill-treatment suffered by certain detained workers and, if such allegations are found to be true, to punish the guilty parties and provide compensation for any damages suffered. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken to this end and the results thereof.