Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 153, Mars 1976

1. 99. The Committee last examined this case in May 1975 and submitted to the Governing Body at that session, a final report which appears in paragraphs 69 to 81 of its 151st Report. The Governing Body approved this Report at its 196th Session (May 1975).
2. 100. The Government sent further observations in a communication dated 1 July 1975.
3. 101. The Dominican Republic 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

1. 102. The allegations concern the imprisonment of Mr. Fernando de la Rosa, Workers' Education Secretary of the Dominican National Workers' Confederation. He had been sentenced to one year's imprisonment by virtue of legislation outlawing the Communist Party and making those who carry on propaganda in favour of banned associations liable to imprisonment. He had subsequently been set free. There was nothing in the verdicts rendered to indicate the specific facts of which this person had been accused. In its 151st Report, the Committee had found this the more regrettable in that the Government had not provided the precise information asked for about the actual circumstances which led to Mr. Fernando de la Rosa's conviction.
2. 103. The Committee had taken the view that it was not competent to consider purely political allegations, but that it could and should consider action of a political nature taken by governments in so far as such action might affect the exercise of trade union rights. It had recalled that the aim of its procedure is to ensure respect for freedom of association in law as well as in fact and that it is convinced that just as this procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side should recognise the importance, for the protection of their own good name, of formulating for objective examination detailed factual replies to such detailed factual charges as may be put forward.
3. 104. In these circumstances, the Committee had recommended the Governing Body to draw the Government's attention to the principles and considerations set forth in paragraphs 102 and 103 above, and to deplore the fact that neither the Government's comments nor the verdicts rendered contained any specific information about the actual circumstances which led to Mr. Fernando de la Rosa's conviction, as a result of which the Committee was unable to reach its conclusions in full knowledge of the facts.
4. 105. In its latest communication, the Government states that the person concerned did not lodge an appeal with the Supreme Court against the decision of the competent court of appeal, and that this decision has therefore become binding and may no longer be changed. The National Constitution, the Government adds, establishes the separation of the legislative, executive and judicial powers and the independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by law. The Code of Criminal Procedure further provides for extraordinary appeals for civil review or on the grounds of denial of justice. The Government points out that since Mr. Fernando de la Rosa had not appealed to the Supreme Court, the case is closed.

106. The Committee notes these observations but considers that they do not provide any new information concerning the substance of the matter. Consequently, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to confirm its previous conclusions.