Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 108, 1969

1. 154. The Committee examined this case previously at its meetings in May 1966 and February 1967, when it submitted to the Governing Body the two interim reports contained, respectively, in paragraphs 176 to 208 of the Committee's 92nd Report and paragraphs 205 to 237 of its 95th Report.
2. 155. Honduras 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. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to a Strike Called by the Central Federation of Unions of Free Workers of Honduras (FECESITLIH)
  156. 156 In its complaint, the FECESITLIH stated that a general strike in July 1965 by the workers' organisations, particularly those affiliated to the Central Federation referred to, had been broken up by government armed pickets, that various trade unions had been destroyed, and that some union officers had been dismissed. The Government, in its reply, stated that the strike had been illegal, that it had been broken up by groups of civilians, that a state of siege had been decreed as a result of the disturbances caused by the strike and that certain persons had been arrested, including Mr. Julio César Villalta Matamoros and Mr. Carlos Alberto Reyes Pineda. In a subsequent letter, the Government explained that proceedings had been instituted against these persons, who were trade union officers, for alleged offences against the security of the State. Both the accused persons had been released on bail.
  157. 157 At its meeting in February 1967, the Committee, after examining the various allegations in the light of the information received from the complainants and from the Government, reached certain conclusions and decided to continue the examination of only one aspect of the case, namely the arrest of the trade unionists referred to. It therefore recommended the Governing Body, as it had already done at its May 1966 session, to request the Government to supply as soon as possible additional information concerning the precise reasons which led to the trial of the trade unionists Mr. Julio César Villalta Matamoros and Mr. Carlos Alberto Reyes Pineda for offences against the security of the State, to keep it informed of the results of the trial of these two men, and to communicate the text of the judgments given together with the grounds therefor.
  158. 158 The Government, in a letter dated 30 August 1968, forwarded the text of the judgments of first and second instance given on 5 June and 26 July 1968 respectively, in the trial of certain accused persons, including the two trade unionists referred to, for offences against the security of the State, as well as the text of the judgment at second instance dated 19 June 1968, which quashed the sentence of provisional detention that had been passed on these persons.
  159. 159 The judgments referred to show that, as a result of the street disturbances that had occurred in Tegucigalpa on 27 and 28 July 1965, a number of persons, including the trade unionists Villalta Matamoros and Reyes Pineda, had been arrested and provisionally sentenced to prison for offences against the security of the State. During the trial, in which the accused were assisted by an advocate, it was impossible to prove who had been responsible for the offence in question, and an acquittal was therefore decided upon at first instance, this decision being confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
  160. 160 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note that the trade unionists Julio César Villalta Matamoros and Carlos Alberto Reyes Pineda were arrested by order of the judge, released on bail, and brought to trial, that they were assisted by an advocate, and that an acquittal was decided upon, and accordingly to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations concerning the Strike by the Rio Lindo Textile Mill Workers' Union
  161. 161 In examining these allegations, relating to a strike that had been declared illegal on the grounds that the conciliation procedure provided for by law had not been followed, the Committee, at its February 1967 session, recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to specify what measures it had taken or intended to take to establish the conciliation and arbitration boards called for by the law before a strike might be lawfully declared I
  162. 162 As no communication in this connection has yet been received, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government once again to supply the information referred to.