Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 380, Octubre 2016

1. 590. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 8 December 2015 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).
2. 591. The Government sent partial observations in a communication dated 4 August 2016.
3. 592. Indonesia 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. The complainant’s allegations

1. 593. In its communication dated 8 December 2015, the ITUC alleges repeated acts of violence against workers protesting against new regulations on wage setting. The ITUC explains that the Confederation of Indonesian Trade Unions (KSPI), among other unions, has recently established a forum (the Gerakan Buruh Indonesia – Komite Aksi Upah) calling for a living wage. The ITUC alleges that several trade union activities planned as part of the campaign were targets of violent attacks by police and local authorities.
2. 594. The ITUC explains that on 30 October 2015, trade unions organized a lawful and peaceful protest in front of the Presidential Palace, which was attended by more than 35,000 workers. The complainant alleges that despite its peaceful nature, police used water cannons and tear gas to disperse the protesters. It then arrested 23 workers and detained them for 30 hours, accusing them of organizing the demonstration. These workers continue to face criminal charges under articles 216(1) and 218 of the Criminal Code and are required to report to the regional police in Poldo Metro Jaya on a weekly basis.
3. 595. According to the ITUC, on the same day, peaceful demonstrations in other parts of the country were similarly disrupted. It alleges that heavily armed thugs wearing uniforms of the Organisasi Kepemudaan, hired by employers’ organizations, were used to intimidate workers in the Medan North Sumatra region. Seven labour activists from the North Sumatra Workers Alliance were attacked by thugs as they marched towards a government building in the Medan Industrial area to protest Government Regulation No. 78/2015 on wages. As a result, the workers suffered serious injuries and were transferred to hospitals for medical treatment. In Jawa Timur, a member of the Federation of Indonesian Metal Workers Union (FSPMI) was severely beaten by the police and fainted.
4. 596. The ITUC alleges that in the days leading up to the nationwide strike planned for 24–27 November 2015, the police occupied the branch office of the KSPI in North Jakarta; put the KSPI and FSPMI branch office under surveillance for about one week; and summoned, on 30 October 2015, Muhamad Rusdi, the KSPI union leader.
5. 597. The ITUC explains that the industrial action planned for 24–27 November 2015 included stopping production in industrial areas and pickets in front of factories and local authorities (districts and provinces). Hundreds of thousands of workers from a broad range of trade unions followed the call for the strike in the following regions: Batam, East Java (Mojokerto, Sidoarjo, Surabaya and Gresik), Central Java (Semarang), West Java (Bekasi, Karawang, Purwakarta, Depok, Bogor, Cimahi and Bandung) and Medan North Sumatra. More than 5 million workers were expected to participate in the strike on the first day. However, threats and intimidation by the police, Government and thugs led to a lower participation (over 2 million workers from 22 provinces participated in the strike).
6. 598. According to the ITUC, on 24 November 2015, the police physically attacked two picketing workers and seized their cameras. The ITUC alleges that local authorities and employers in the Bekasi, Karawang and Batam regions attempted to intimidate workers and refers to the following examples. The Indonesian Employers Association (Apindo) in the Bekasi area sent a written letter to workers falsely stating that the national strike was illegal and that consequently, all workers participating in the strike would face sanctions, including under the criminal law. Factory management in the PT. DMCTI Jababeka Industrial area in Bekasi coerced workers into signing statements declaring that they would not be participating in the strike. About 75 workers, including regional union leaders and coordinators, were dismissed for not signing the statements and participating in the national strike. The local authorities in Bekasi and Batam issued written statements arguing that national strikes were not permitted under the legislation, that the 24–27 November 2015 strike was therefore unlawful and that employers were allowed to prevent workers from picketing near factories and not pay workers on strike. Local police had made similar statements and threatened workers with criminal punishments. The notices were placed on factory walls and handed directly to workers in the industrial areas.
7. 599. On 25 November 2015, arguing that it was prohibited to demonstrate in the industrial areas as they were part of the “National Vital Object Area”, the police arrested the following five union leaders in the Bekasi Industrial Estates, West Java: Nurdin Muhidin (labour activist and member of local parliament), Ruhiyat (NAMICOH plant level union), Udin Wahyudin (HIKARI plant level union), Amo Sutarmo (EPINDO plant level union), and Adika Yadi (NGK plant level union). These workers were detained for about eight hours before they were released.
8. 600. The ITUC also alleges that a Korean company in Bekasi hired dozens of thugs who attacked workers using water cannons.
9. 601. The ITUC expresses its serious concern over the large scale interference in workers’ right to organize peaceful public meetings and industrial actions through excessive police violence, intimidation and arbitrary arrests. It considers that these acts constitute a flagrant violation of freedom of association and the right to organize in Indonesia.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 602. In its communication dated 4 August 2016, the Government indicates that freedom of association and the right to organize are protected under Law No. 21 of 2000 on Trade Unions and Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower. Furthermore, the right to express opinions in public (through demonstrations/rallies), both orally and in writing, is protected by the 1945 Constitution and Law No. 9 of 1998 on Freedom of Expression in Public. However, participants in demonstrations and rallies must respect the legislation in force. The Government provides the following information on the allegations raised in this case.
2. 603. Regarding the allegation of police interference in the demonstration on 30 October 2015 in front of the Presidential Palace, the use of water cannons and tear gas to disperse the crowd and detention of 23 workers, the Government indicates that pursuant to section 7(1) of Head of National Police Regulation No. 7 of 2012 on procedures for organizing service, security and case management of expressing opinion in public and section 5 of the Governor of Jakarta Regulation No. 228 of 2015 on controlling the implementation of freedom of expression in public, any expression of opinion in public (demonstration) in open spaces shall be conducted in the period from 6 a.m. to 18 p.m. The Government explains that as the demonstration held by workers in front of the Palace exceeded the permitted duration, the police took crowd dispersion measures. In particular, it arranged for negotiation with Mr Rusdi, Secretary General of the KSPI, and the field coordinators. Despite the fact that the police allowed some leeway (deadline tolerance until 19 p.m.), the crowd deliberately persisted and refused to disperse. To maintain public order, the police tried to disperse the crowd by force, using water cannons. However, the use of water cannon turned out to have no effect as the crowd remained in front of the Palace. In these circumstances, the Indonesian National Police (INP) took further steps by using tear gas. The Government explains that the INP actions comply with the national legislation and regulations, in particular, Police Regulation No. 7 of 2012, Police Regulation No. 16 of 2006 on guidelines and procedures of mass control, and procedure of the head of the INP No. PROTAP/1/X/2010 on handling anarchy.
3. 604. The Government indicates that 26 people (23 workers, two persons from the Legal Aid Institute (LBH) and one university student) were arrested for having allegedly committed acts of provocation, that is to say persuading other protesters not to disperse, thereby ignoring orders or requests from the authorities, in violation of articles 216(1) and 218 of the Criminal Code. They were released after questioning. The Government points out that the arrest complied with article 19, paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which, the arrest shall not exceed one 24-hour period.
4. 605. With regard to the demonstration in Medan, North Sumatra, and the allegation of beating of workers participating in a long march, the Government indicates that the march participants did not follow the route initially proposed by the field coordinator of the North Sumatra Workers Alliance to the local police. The workers have not only changed the route but also forced other workers to participate in the rally. The Government indicates that the sweeping action and coercion to rally has caused tension and resistance from workers and security guards of PT. BIA, but that there were no attacks against marching workers. At 17 p.m. the marching action came to an end and the workers dispersed in an orderly manner.
5. 606. Regarding the demonstration in East Java and the allegation of beatings of a FSPMI member, the Government explains that pursuant to Police Regulation No. 16 of 2006 and Procedure No. PROTAP/1/X/2010, the police is prohibited from committing acts of violence in handling protests and demonstrations. The Government indicates that according to the information provided by the INP, no worker or member of the FSPMI was beaten by the police. Moreover, there were no complaints submitted or reported by workers to the police alleging beatings by the police officers.
6. 607. With regard to the alleged police intervention prior to the national strike on 24–27 November 2015, the Government indicates that the INP liaised with the North Jakarta Police and KSPI officials and determined that there is no branch office of the KSPI located in the North Jakarta area. As for the allegation concerning Mr Rusdi, the Government indicates that he continues to carry out his activities as the Secretary General of the KSPI and that legal proceedings in relation to the alleged violation of articles 216(1) and 218 of the Criminal Code by 26 demonstrators, including Mr Rusdi, are pending before the court.
7. 608. Regarding the alleged violence against workers during the national strike, the Government indicates that it has been coordinating with different stakeholders such as Apindo Bekasi and the manpower local office in Bekasi and Batam district to make clarifications in relation to these complaints. It indicates, in particular, that by a letter dated 12 March 2016, the Governing Board of Apindo Bekasi explained that the proposed national strike staged by workers as an effort to resist and urge the Government to revoke its Regulation No. 78 of 2015 created anxiety for employers. The Governing Board of Apindo Bekasi district confirmed that it had issued a “Position Statement” regarding the planned nationwide strike to be held on 24–27 November 2015. The statement conveyed to its members that whereas Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower contains no “national strike” terminology, rallies are regulated by Law No. 9 of 1998 on rallies. Thus, in the organization’s view, the “national strike” was an illegal activity. Therefore, employers (Apindo members) could enforce the “no work no pay” principle or impose sanctions that are “measurable”, pursuant to the company regulations or collective labour agreements in force, on employees participating in the strike and/or on those who “persuaded, instigated, ordered” to conduct the national strike. Apindo Bekasi pointed out that notwithstanding this statement, criminal offenses committed by workers, both inside and outside the company, may be subject to criminal sanctions in accordance with the applicable legislation (the Criminal Code).
8. 609. By way of response to the above communication, the Government argues that “strikes” and “protests/demonstrations” are different activities and provides the following explanation on the differences in the definition as set out in the national legislation:
   • Strike is regulated by Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower. Pursuant to its section 1, paragraph 23, strike is an action of workers/labourers who planned and carried out jointly or by the Workers/Labour Union to cease or slow down work. The implementation of the strike must comply with the requirements set out in sections 137 and 140. Pursuant to section 137, strike is a fundamental right of workers/labourers, must be carried out legally orderly, and peacefully and be a result of a failed negotiation. Section 140 stipulates that workers/employees and trade/labour unions shall notify in writing the employers concerned and the government agency responsible for manpower affairs at least seven working days before the strike takes place.
   • Rallies/demonstrations are regulated by Law No. 9 of 1998. Pursuant to its section 1, paragraph 3, “rally/demonstration” is an activity carried out by an individual or a group to express their opinion orally, in writing or in other manner in public (i.e. in front of a crowd, or any other person, or a place that can be visited or seen by anyone). Pursuant to section 10 of the Law, a rally or demonstration shall be notified in writing by an individual, leader, or a group coordinator at least 72 hours in advance to the local INP.
9. 610. Based on the above, the Government concludes that the national strike undertaken by workers on 24 November 2015 is in fact a demonstration. Demonstrators or protesters violating public order may be subject to sanctions pursuant to the Criminal Code and related legislation.
10. 611. Regarding the allegation that the management of PT. DMCTI in Jababeka, Bekasi, forced workers to sign a statement declaring that they would not participate in the strike, the Government informs that it is currently seeking clarification from the management.
11. 612. Regarding the allegation that the district government of Bekasi and the Department of Manpower Batam have issued written statements to the effect that the national strike was illegal and therefore the employers were entitled to prevent workers from joining the demonstrations around the factory and not pay the wages to the strike participants, the Government transmits the following clarification obtained from the manpower local offices in Bekasi and Batam.
12. 613. In a letter dated 29 March 2016, the Head of the Bekasi office explained that following the enactment of Government Regulation No. 78 of 2015 various trade unions opposed to it, requested the Bekasi district Government to submit a Recommendation to the Central Government to reject the Regulation, and demanded Bekasi district government to ignore it in the process of establishment of minimum wages for 2016, and further demanded a 50 per cent wage increase for 2016. In this respect, the Government of Bekasi suggested using applicable mechanisms and to file a judicial review against the Regulation. The police, civil police and the department of transportation in Bekasi district were requested to take measures to maintain security and order and to prevent anarchy during the activity.
13. 614. In a letter dated 14 March 2016, the head of the manpower local office Batam explained that that while the office’s letter dated 13 November 2015 concerned the national strike, it was not a notice of its prohibition. The letter was written in response to the plan to organize a national strike or rally, which caused anxiety amongst the business community and the municipal community of Batam, based on the experiences of the previous years when the nationwide protests were accompanied by sweeping actions against companies and the blockade of some roads in the city of Batam, causing severe congestion and anarchic acts, such as burning several police stations and vehicles as well as damaging the Batam Mayor’s office. In light of its experience, the manpower local office in Batam wrote to the employers and trade unions in Batam city bringing their attention to the relevant legislative provisions according to which the organization of a national strike has to follow certain steps. First of all, a strike should be a result of a failed negotiation of a bipartite agreement; if this step is not fulfilled, the strike is illegal and workers are not entitled to receive wages. The department of manpower in Batam claimed that there is nothing improper with the letter it sent to the employers and trade union as it did not prohibit the union to go on strike and no freedom of association rights have been violated by its publication.
14. 615. In the light of the above letters, the Government concludes that the measures taken by the local governments in Bekasi and Batam intended to urge the strikers and demonstrators to comply with the legislation in force; such an appeal is not a ban on strike action or protests per se.
15. 616. With regard to the allegation that local police also made a similar statement and threatened the workers with criminal sanctions, the Government indicates that according to the information received from the INP, there was no police statement or notice either placed on the factories’ walls or distributed in the industrial area.
16. 617. Regarding the strike rally on 25 November 2015, the Government considers that the action taken by workers in the industrial area is not a strike action, but a rally/demonstration. The industrial area of Bekasi is one of the national vital objects that should be free of rallies and demonstrations. The determination of Bekasi industrial area as a national vital object is based on the consideration that Bekasi industrial area is an area/location, construction/installation and/or business area which has an impact on the livelihood of the people, the state interest and/or its strategic sources of state revenue. As Bekasi industrial zone is a national vital object, the following matters must be borne in mind: its capacity to generate daily basic needs and the fact that threats and harassment against it would bring disaster to the development and cause national transportation and communications difficulties. The Government points out that the demonstration in the industrial area of Bekasi was not carried out in accordance with the procedures and provisions of Law No. 9 of 1998, as no advance notice regarding the organization of the demonstration was sent to the police, and the demonstration disrupted the public order as protesters closed public roads. These actions are in breach of sections 6 and 10 (referred to above) of Law No. 9 of 1998.
    • Section 6: Citizens who express their opinions in public are obliged and shall be responsible:
      • – to respect the rights and freedoms of others;
      • – to respect the moral rules that are generally recognized;
      • – to obey the applicable laws and regulations;
      • – to maintain and respect the security and public order; and
      • – to maintain the integrity of national unity.
17. 618. The Government points out that as the workers had violated the above provisions, the police dispersed demonstrators and arrested five workers, although released them after questioning.

The Committee’s conclusions

1. 619. The Committee notes that in the present case the complainant alleges the violation of the right to organize peaceful public demonstrations and a national strike. In particular, the ITUC alleges: (1) police interference in peaceful demonstrations on 30 October 2015, as well as serious injuries suffered by labour activists as a result of an attack by thugs during the protest; (2) police interference ahead of the national strike by occupying the branch offices of the KSPI in North Jakarta, putting FSPMI branch offices under surveillance and the summoning of Mr Rusdi, leader of the KSPI; and (3) violations committed by the authorities and employers during the national strike in November 2015.
2. 620. The Committee notes the Government’s general observation that freedom of association, the right to organize and freedom to express opinions in public, including through demonstrations and protests, are protected in Indonesia by various pieces of legislation, including the Constitution, Law No. 9 of 1998 on Freedom of Expression in Public, Law No. 21 of 2000 on Trade Unions and Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower. The Government points out that at the same time, participants in demonstrations and protests must respect the legislation in force.
3. 621. As a general point, the Committee has always considered that in exercising their freedoms and rights, workers and their respective organizations shall respect the law of the land, but further recalls that the law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, trade union rights and civil liberties, such as the right to undertake industrial actions and hold public meetings, protests and demonstrations. The Committee further recalls the conclusions of the 2016 International Labour Conference Committee on the Application of Standards which calls upon the Government to ensure that workers are able to engage freely in peaceful actions in law and practice without sanctions (Provisional Record No. 16, Part 2, 105th Session of the ILC, May–June 2016).
4. 622. With respect to the events of 30 October 2015, the Committee notes that according to the ITUC, a lawful and peaceful protest in front of the Presidential Palace, attended by more than 35,000 workers, was dispersed by the police, which used water cannons and tear gas. According to the ITUC, the police arrested 23 workers and detained them for 30 hours, accusing them of organizing the demonstration. These workers continue to face criminal charges under articles 216(1) and 218 of the Criminal Law and are required to report to the regional police in Poldo Metro Jaya on a weekly basis. Peaceful demonstrations in other parts of the country were similarly disrupted. The ITUC alleges that heavily armed thugs wearing uniforms of the Organisasi Kepemudaan, hired by employers’ organizations, were used to intimidate workers in the Medan North Sumatra region and that seven labour activists from the North Sumatra Workers Alliance were attacked by thugs as they marched towards a government building in the Medan Industrial area to protest Government Regulation No. 78/2015 on wages. As a result, the workers suffered serious injuries and were transferred to hospitals for medical treatment. In Jawa Timur, a member of the FSPMI was severely beaten by the police and fainted.
5. 623. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that according to the national legislation in force, public demonstrations should take place between 6 a.m. and 18 p.m. and that the protest in front of the Presidential Palace had exceeded the allowed duration. Thus, the police were required to take crowd dispersion measures, which included the use of water cannons and when these produced no result, tear gas. The Government points out that the INP actions comply with the national legislation and regulations. It further confirms that 26 people were arrested (23 workers among them) on the grounds of committing acts of provocation, that is to say persuading other protesters not to disperse, thereby ignoring orders or requests from the authorities, in violation of articles 216(1) and 218 of the Criminal Code. The Government indicates that they were released after questioning and points out that the arrest complied with article 19, paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which, the arrest shall not exceed one 24-hour period. Regarding the demonstration in Medan, North Sumatra, and the allegation of the beating of workers participating in a long march, the Government indicates that the march participants did not follow the route initially agreed on and forced other workers to participate in the rally, which caused tension and resistance from workers and security guards of PT. BIA. The Government denies that there were attacks against marching workers and indicates that at 17.00 p.m. the marching action came to an end and the workers dispersed in an orderly manner. The Government also indicates that according to the information provided by the INP, no worker or member of the FSPMI was beaten by the police, which is illegal. Moreover, there were no complaints submitted or reported by workers to the police alleging beatings by the police officers.
6. 624. The Committee wishes to recall that trade unions should respect legal provisions which are intended to ensure the maintenance of public order; the public authorities should, for their part, refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of trade unions to organize the holding and proceedings of their meetings in full freedom. The obligation on a procession to follow a predetermined itinerary does not constitute a violation of trade union rights. In general, the use of the forces of order during trade union demonstrations should be limited to cases of genuine necessity [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paras 147, 148 and 150].
7. 625. The Committee notes that the Government does not indicate that order was seriously threatened by the demonstration in front of the Presidential Palace and reports of no incident that would suggest that the protest was not peaceful. The Committee is therefore deeply concerned by the excessive force used to disperse it and the arrests that followed. It further recalls that the authorities should resort to the use of force only in situations where law and order is seriously threatened. The intervention of the forces of order should be in due proportion to the danger to law and order that the authorities are attempting to control and governments should take measures to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to eliminate the danger entailed by the use of excessive violence when controlling demonstrations which might result in a disturbance of the peace. The police authorities should be given precise instructions so that, in cases where public order is not seriously threatened, people are not arrested simply for having organized or participated in a demonstration [see Digest, op. cit., paras 140 and 151]. The Committee therefore expects that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that these principles are fully respected. It requests the Government to review the situation of the 23 workers in light of these principles with a view to dropping any remaining charges and to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.
8. 626. Noting the contradicting information regarding the allegation of a beating of a FSPMI member and, in particular that no formal complaints have apparently been submitted to the authorities in this regard, the Committee invites the FSPMI, should it so desire, to transmit any relevant information in this regard to the Government so that it may fully examine these allegations within the framework of existing national procedures.
9. 627. Regarding the alleged interference prior to the national strike, the Committee notes that according to the complainant, the police occupied the branch office of the KSPI in North Jakarta; put the KSPI and FSPMI branch office under surveillance for about one week; and summoned, on 30 October 2015, Muhamad Rusdi, the KSPI union leader.
10. 628. The Committee notes the Government's indication that the INP authorities have communicated with the KSPI regarding this allegation and determined that there is no KSPI branch office located in North Jakarta. In these circumstances and in the absence of further details, the Committee requests the complainant to provide further information in this regard. The Committee understands from the information provided by the Government that Mr Rusdi, while he continues to exercise his duties as the KSPI Secretary General, was charged with violating articles 216(1) and 218 of the Criminal Code in relation to his arrest on 30 October 2015 together with other 22 workers, and refers in this respect to its recommendation to review this situation.
11. 629. With regard to the third set of allegations, that is to say Government’s and employers’ interference during the national strike on 24–27 November 2015, the Committee notes that the ITUC alleges that: (i) on 24 November 2015, the police physically attacked two picketing workers and seized their cameras; (ii) Apindo (Bekasi) sent a written letter to workers falsely stating that the national strike was illegal and that consequently, all workers participating in the strike would face sanctions, including under the criminal law; following this communication, the factory management from one enterprise in the Jababeka Industrial area coerced workers into signing statements declaring that they would not be participating in the strike; and about 75 workers, including regional union leaders and coordinators, were dismissed for not signing the statements and participating in the national strike; (iii) local authorities in Bekasi and Batam issued written statements arguing that national strikes were not permitted under the legislation, that the 24–27 November 2015 strike was therefore unlawful and that employers were allowed to prevent workers from picketing near factories and not pay workers on strike; (iv) local police made similar statements and threatened workers with criminal punishments; such notices were placed on factory walls and handed directly to workers in the industrial areas; (v) on 25 November 2015, arguing that it was prohibited to demonstrate in the industrial areas as they were part of the “National Vital Object Area”, the police arrested Nurdin Muhidin, Ruhiyat, Udin Wahyudin, Amo Sutarmo and Adika Yadi; these five union leaders in the Bekasi Industrial Estates (West Java) were detained for about eight hours before they were released; and (vi) the hiring by a Korean company in Bekasi of dozens of thugs who attacked workers using water cannons.
12. 630. The Committee notes that the Government confirms that Apindo in Bekasi district has indeed issued a position statement for the attention of its members, in which the employers’ organization expressed its view that the national strike was illegal (as not being an action envisaged under the Law on Manpower) and thus, the employers could enforce the “no work no pay” principle or impose “measurable” sanctions pursuant to company regulations or a collective agreement, as the case may be, on the striking workers. The Committee notes that the Government agrees with Apindo regarding the nature of the action taken by the workers and argues that the national strike of November 2015 was in fact a demonstration. The Government also considers that the Bekasi industrial area is one of the national vital objects that should be free of rallies and demonstrations. At the same time, the Government points out that the demonstration in that area was not carried out in accordance with the procedure provided for in Law No. 9 of 1998. According to the Government, protesters violating public order are thus subject to sanctions under the Criminal Code and related legislation. Furthermore, while the Government confirms that local manpower offices in Batam and Bekasi have issued written statements regarding the strike, it considers that the aim of the statements was not to prohibit the strike or demonstration, but rather to call on the strikers or protesters to comply with the legislation in force and in particular, in the case of the Bekasi office, to comply with the steps imposed by the legislation. In respect of the latter point, the Committee notes that the statement recalled that a strike should be a result of a failed negotiation, otherwise the strike is considered illegal. The Government denies that the local INP made similar statements and threatened the workers with criminal sanctions.
13. 631. The Committee notes the diverging views of the complainant and the Government as to the qualification of the activity undertaken by the KSPI as a national strike or demonstration, respectively. The Committee considers, as it did in Case No. 3050 concerning Indonesia [see Report No. 374, para. 468], that it is not relevant for the purposes of the examination of this present case whether the KSPI activity is ultimately qualified as a national strike or a national demonstration. Noting that the Government, while invoking actions such as the blocking of roads, has not provided detailed information of any acts of violence committed by the workers and, at the same time, has not provided information denying the allegation that thugs were hired by a company in Bekasi to attack and disperse the workers, the Committee recalls that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected [see Digest, op. cit., para. 44]. The Committee expects that the Government will make every effort to ensure that this principle is fully respected in the future. Furthermore, the Committee wishes to generally recall that, in the event of assaults on the physical or moral integrity of individuals, it has considered that an independent judicial inquiry should be instituted immediately with a view to fully clarifying the facts, determining responsibility, punishing those responsible and preventing the repetition of such acts [see Digest, op. cit., para. 50]. The Committee trusts that this principle will be fully respected as regards all perpetrators and instigators of the alleged acts of violence. Further in this respect, the Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government regarding the alleged attack by the police on picketing workers. The Committee further recalls in this regard the 2016 conclusions of the ILC Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations which called upon the Government to investigate allegations of violence against trade unionists during demonstrations. It therefore requests the Government to investigate the matter and if proven to be true, to take appropriate measures to punish those responsible and to ensure appropriate compensation for any damages suffered. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
14. 632. With regard to the allegation that Bekasi is a special economic zone where strikes, rallies and demonstrations are prohibited, the Committee notes that while on the one hand the Government confirms this situation, on the other, it declares that the procedure for declaring a demonstration was not followed by its organizers. The Committee wishes to generally recall in this respect that a prohibition of an industrial action, including protests and demonstrations, in special economic zones is incompatible with the principles of freedom of association.
15. 633. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is currently seeking clarification from the management of the PT. DMCTI in Jababeka, Bekasi, regarding the allegation that workers were forced into signing statements declaring that they will not participate in the strike. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect and further expects that the allegation of dismissal of 75 workers following their participation in the industrial action will be fully investigated and the appropriate remedial action taken.