Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 217, Juin 1982

1. 45. The Committee examined this case at its meeting in February 1982 when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. Subsequently, the Government sent its observations by a communication dated 23 March 1982.
2. 46. Peru has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Eight to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 47. After the previous examination of the case by the Committee, there remained pending questions relating to the initiation of legal proceedings before the 17th District Court against leaders or members of the General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP) and the detention of some of them, including Roberto Rojas Grajeda, regional secretary of the CGTP, and Magno Fernández, a trade union member, who, according to the complainant, had been libellously and falsely accused of engaging in terrorist activities without the authorities producing any proof whatsoever.
2. 48. The Government stated that legal proceedings had been initiated against Magno Fernández Zegarra and other persons for disturbing the peace, bodily assault and damaging the property of the State, the Construction Development Bank and others. The Government added that, according to a report by the examining magistrate of the 17th District Court, at no time during the proceedings had it been known that the persons involved were leaders of the CGTP until it was discovered from a judicial police memorandum that that was the case as regards some of those charged.
3. 49. The Committee, not possessing sufficient information to reach definitive conclusions, drew the Government's attention to the fact that persons should not be held in custody for longer than is strictly necessary, recalled the importance which it attaches to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary, and requested that it be informed of the findings of the proceedings initiated against Magno Fernández Zegarra, Roberto Rojas Grajeda and the other leaders and members of the CGTP, indicating the charges against them, their legal situation in the proceedings and any measures that had been or might be taken to deprive them of their freedom.

B. The Government's reply

1. 50. In its communication dated 23 March 1982 the Government states that the proceedings brought against Magno Fernández and others for disturbing the peace, bodily assault and damaging the property of the States, the Construction Development Bank and others are continuing. The Government points out that, on the morning of 15 January 1981 - the day of a national strike called by the leftwing political organisations, the Túpac Amaru, Pachacútec and Carretera Central avenues were found to be blocked with stones, timber, worn tyres which had been soaked with flammable material, torn-down electric lamp-posts, tree trunks and torn-down advertising boards and that stones were thrown at vehicles when transport started to move. The violence resulted in the deaths of two parsons, injuries to 200 and in damage of an approximate total of 5 million soles. As a result of these assaults, material damage and disturbances of public order - concludes the Government - judicial proceedings were brought in accordance with the various police reports.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 51. The Committee notes the Governments statements which indicate, in particular, that the penal proceedings against Magne Fernández, Roberto Fojas and other trade unionists were initiated following the assaults on life and physical integrity and the material damage which occurred on 15 January 1981, the day of a national strike, and which resulted in the deaths of two persons, injuries to 200 and in material damage of an approximate total of 5 million soles.
2. 52. In these circumstances, taking account of the fact that the charges against the trade unionists to which the complainant refers constitute, even though they occurred on the day of a national strike, offences against physical integrity and against the property of others, and taking likewise account of the fact that it was only when the legal proceedings had been initiated that the authorities became aware of the trade union status of these persons, the Committee considers that the bringing of penal investigation proceedings for the purpose of determining the guilt of those indicted and the possible detention of some of them do not appear to be contrary to the principles of freedom of association. In consequence, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination.