Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 120, 1971

1. 192. The last report to the Governing Body in respect of this case, which was examined by the Committee at its session in May 1970, is contained in paragraphs 98 to 110 of its 118th Report.
2. 193. Since that report was submitted a communication has been received from the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) dated 18 June 1970 and one from Mr. Rubén Carlos Esguerra dated 11 July 1970. Both have been transmitted to the Government, which so far has not forwarded its observations on them.
3. 194. In another connection, on 23 February 1970, the WCL sent a communication containing fresh allegations relating to certain events said to have taken place in Lecumberri Prison, of which a number of prisoners, including trade unionists, were the victims. The Government has forwarded its observations in this respect by a communication dated 10 August 1970.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Imprisonment of Mr. Esguerra
  195. 195 When at its May 1970 session it considered this aspect of the case, relating to the trial and sentencing of Mr. Esguerra, who had been acting as a trade union representative, the Committee carefully examined the information available, and in particular the text of the judgment pronounced. The Committee expressed the opinion at that time that the acts said to have been committed by Mr. Esguerra and which had led to his being found guilty of the offence of fraud were clearly quite outside the scope of any trade union activity. Nevertheless, in the Committee's view, the situation was not the same in the case of the acts on account of which he had been found guilty of attempted homicide.
  196. 196 The Committee recalled that the acts in question had involved the intervention of Mr. Esguerra in an act of protest by workers and trade union officials in support of labour claims. The action he had taken had consisted, firstly, in inducing these workers to stage a hunger strike, in which they were quite willing to participate. Later Mr. Esguerra was said to have tried to prevent the participants in the strike from abandoning it or from being given food and assistance, thus endangering their lives. As a result, according to the judgment, it had been necessary for the forces of public order to intervene in order that the strikers might be taken to hospital. Nevertheless, the Committee also observed that the Government had earlier supplied information (communication of 12 January 1968) to the effect that " seven persons took part in a hunger strike at the doors of the United Nations offices, but lack of food was endangering their health and this induced them to give up the strike and seek medical treatment ". Of these seven persons, " six were taken at their own request by staff of the Social Welfare Directorate to the general hospital in Mexico City. The remaining person preferred to go to a private clinic."
  197. 197 Since an appeal had been lodged against the sentence with the Higher Court of Justice, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to adjourn its examination of the case and request the Government to forward the text of the judgment pronounced by the Court in question together with the grounds adduced.
  198. 198 In its communication of 18 June 1970, the WCL alleges that the proceedings had been irregular and engineered for political purposes of " terrorising and persecuting all those who are not prepared to accept a trade union movement subservient to and dominated by the State ". The WCL also points out that, although under Mexican law the appeal to the Higher Court of Justice should have been expedited within three months at the maximum, the Court had not yet pronounced judgment even though fourteen months had passed.
  199. 199 Mr. Esguerra, for his part, in his communication of 11 July 1970, has various comments to make upon the proceedings. With regard to the offence of fraud, he declares that the allegations against him were slanderous and designed to prevent him from engaging in trade union activities, that the plaintiffs, did not appear before the judge, and that no verbal or written evidence was produced against him. As concerns the offence of attempted homicide, Mr. Esguerra mentions statements made before the judge by two government officials who had intervened in connection with the hunger strike, from which it would appear that these officials had been in direct contact with the persons participating in the strike, and that it was the latter who refused assistance and not the accused. He also states that he was obliged to accept the services of the officially provided defence counsel, who did not keep him informed of developments in connection with the proceedings or as to the manner in which he was conducting his defence. Lastly, Mr. Esguerra points out that nearly fifteen months have gone by since he lodged his appeal against the sentence, whereas normally the processing of an appeal takes about three months, and according to the Code of Criminal Procedure the court should have pronounced judgment not more than eight days after the last hearing (which took place on 13 March 1970). Yet at the time of writing the court still had not pronounced judgment.
  200. 200 The Committee observes that, although the communications from the WCL and from Mr. Esguerra were transmitted to the Government on 9 July 1970, the Government has not so far forwarded its observations. Furthermore, the Committee already drew attention when it examined this case at its last session to the importance it has always attached to the principle of a speedy and fair trial in all cases, including those where trade unionists are accused of political or common-law offences that the Government considers to be unconnected with their trade union duties.
  201. 201 In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw the Government's attention once again to the importance it attaches to the principle to which reference is made in the preceding paragraph, and to request the Government to forward its comments and the information asked for as soon as possible.
• Allegations relating to Events Said to Have Taken Place in Lecumberri Prison
  202. 202 In its communication of 23 February 1970, the WCL alleges that ninety-one inmates of Lecumberri Prison, mainly trade unionists and students, who had been on a hunger strike were attacked by a mob of 800 prisoners, common criminals, at the instigation of the governor of the prison and the Chief of Police of Mexico City. As a result, twenty-one of the prisoners attacked were seriously injured. The WCL adds that these men are now considerably weakened and have been deprived of their most fundamental rights, and begs the ILO to intervene so as to obtain an explanation of these occurrences and secure the unconditional release of these political and trade union prisoners, who have been in prison since the events in 1968 in Mexico.
  203. 203 This communication was transmitted to the Mexican Government, which forwarded its observations on it by a communication received by the ILO on 10 August 1970. According to the Government's explanations, a group of convicts who styled themselves political prisoners devised a plan for the purpose of attracting public attention, settling at the same time certain grudges against other prisoners and bringing about a confrontation with the prison authorities. To elucidate the facts the Attorney-General for the Federal District and Territories ordered a thorough investigation and released its findings for publication in the press. He also granted interviews to the highest university authorities and representatives of the students (since among the prisoners in question there were a number of students from the Autonomous University of Mexico), who were satisfied with the explanations he gave them.
  204. 204 According to the press cuttings sent by the Government the disturbances began when relatives who had been visiting the prisoners refused to leave the prison at the end of the visiting hours. Subsequently several of the prisoners to whom the complaint refers are said to have smashed padlocks and chains and used them and other objects to attack the common-law prisoners. In the skirmish which ensued the only person to be seriously injured was one of the latter. According to this version it was the common-law prisoners who were attacked by the self-styled political prisoners, in outright contradiction to what is alleged in the complaint.
  205. 205 In these circumstances, and bearing in mind that the complaint is couched in very general terms without any more specific information being furnished by the complainants in substantiation of their allegations, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.