Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 122, 1971

1. 22. The Committee examined this case at its meetings in February and November 1967 and most recently at its meeting in November 1968. In this connection it submitted to the Governing Body the interim reports contained in paragraphs 271 to 290 of its 95th Report, paragraphs 269 to 298 of its 101st Report, and paragraphs 164 to 191 of its 108th Report. The Governing Body approved these reports at its sessions in February-March 1967, November 1967 and November 1968 respectively.
2. 23. Venezuela has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but since the last time the Committee examined the case it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 24. The first of the complainants supplied the names of thirty persons who, they claimed, had been arrested as a result of the Government's policy of repression against part of the trade union movement. The complainants stated that those arrested were national or regional leaders of the Sole Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CUTV).
2. 25. In its first reply the Government stated that none of the persons named by the complainants had been detained for carrying on lawful activities, whether connected with trade unionism or not; most of them had never been trade union leaders and had been sentenced for offences under civil and military law in proceedings before judges on whom the Government had exerted no influence.
3. 26. In accordance with the practice which it has constantly applied in cases where allegations that trade union leaders or workers have been arrested or detained on account of their trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the arrests had been made on the grounds of subversive activities, for reasons of internal security or owing to offences under ordinary law, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to indicate the exact reasons for these arrests, to state whether each of the persons concerned had been brought to trial on the charges made against them, and to communicate the results of the legal proceedings in each case.
4. 27. On the basis of the information supplied by the Government in reply to this and subsequent requests the Committee presented its final conclusions with regard to all the persons mentioned in the complaint, except the following: Messrs. Pardo Lugo, Reyes Bidau, Gutiérrez, Landáaz, Puche Ferrer, Colorado, Acosta, Fariñas, Scott Power, Casique and Luis Marcano.
5. 28. According to information provided by the Government some of these persons had been arrested on several occasions between 1959 and December 1966 on the grounds of subversive activities or in connection with inquiries relating to such activities. For example, the Government stated that Mr. Scott Power had been arrested in April 1965 in connection with inquiries into incitement to disorder and extremist agitation, and that Mr. Pardo had been arrested in February 1962, in 1963 and in December 1966 on grounds connected with the disturbance of public order or for the investigation of subversive activities.
6. 29. In its 101st Report the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to confirm whether all of these persons had been released. In the absence of any reply by the Government the recommendation was repeated in the 108th Report.
7. 30. On 20 February 1970 the Government sent a communication stating that, in accordance with verbal information provided by Mr. Cruz Villegas, President of the Sole Confederation of Venezuelan Workers, his organisation's complaint had been withdrawn verbally by its representatives at a meeting at the ILO's headquarters in Geneva, which explained why there was no document containing formal withdrawal of the complaint.
8. 31. Following this communication the Sole Confederation of Venezuelan Workers and the World Federation of Trade Unions were requested on repeated occasions to send whatever information they might consider pertinent concerning any decision taken by them with regard to the complaint and to state the grounds therefor. The Committee observes that no reply has been received to date from the complainant organisations.