&htab;32.&htab;The complaint of the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions (ICATU) is contained in a communication dated 5 April 1983. The ICATU sent additional information relating to the complaint on 17 May 1983. The Government transmitted its reply in a communication dated 5 January 1984.

&htab;33.&htab;Jordan has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;34.&htab;In its communication of 5 April 1983, the ICATU states that two members of its observer delegation attending the 11th Session of the Conference of the Arab Labour Organisation being held in Amman from 6 to 16 March 1983 were unjustly expelled by the Jordanian security forces on 6 March 1983. According to the complainant, the two members of the delegation - one representing the Bahrain Workers' Federation and the other the National Committee of Workers of Oman - had legally entered Jordan.

&htab;35.&htab;The ICATU states that the intervention on their behalf by the ICATU Secretary-General, his attempts to put a stop to these events and his reminders about custom and Arab and international Conventions met with obstinate refusal by the chief of the security forces detachment who ordered his men to beat and ill-treat the Secretary-General and to arrest the two delegates in question by force. The two delegates were later taken, under escort, to the airport and expelled to Greece. According to the complainant, the Jordanian authorities had intended to send them to their respective countries but gave in to the pressure exerted by the Workers' group of the Conference and the protests made by some delegations.

&htab;36.&htab;The ICATU considers that this expulsion not only violates Article 15 of the Constitution of the Arab Labour Organisation - which guarantees diplomatic immunity to delegations participating in the work of the Conference - but also shows how the Jordanian authorities are violating the civil liberties and trade union rights of the working class in Jordan.

&htab;37.&htab;In its communication of 17 May 1983, the ICATU states that its Secretary-General, Mr. Ahmed Jalloud, wrote, on 20 March 1983, to all its affiliated unions explaining the expulsion in the following terms: the ICATU was invited (in a letter dated 30 January 1983 from the Director-General of the Arab Labour Office) to the 11th Session of the Arab Labour Conference as observer by virtue of article 4 of the Conference Standing Orders; an emergency sitting of the ICATU Central Council decided on a delegation of six persons, headed by Mr. Jalloud and including Ahmed Salem Kassem of the National Committee of Workers of Oman and Sakr Mohammad Ahmad of the Bahrain Workers' Federation; the delegation received the relevant visas from the Jordanian Embassy in Damascus and arrived in Jordan on 5 March 1983; the next day approximately 15 members of the security forces arrested Messrs. Kassem and Ahmed at their hotel and injured those who tried to intercede on their behalf. According to the letter, this event was condemned at the first meeting of the Workers' group of the Conference.

&htab;38.&htab;The Government attaches to its letter of 5 January 1984 various documents relating to the expulsion of the trade unionists in question, in particular, a copy of an ICATU memorandum (dated 2 March 1982 and communicated to all federations of workers' trade unions of Arab States Members of the Arab Labour Organisation) in which the ICATU threatened to boycott the 11th Session of the Conference unless certain conditions relating to the Jordanian trade union legislation and practice be met. The Government also attaches a copy of the reply to this memorandum prepared by the General Federation of Workers' Trade Unions of Jordan (dated 5 February 1983) criticising, in equally strong terms, the ICATU position. According to the Government, the Secretary-General of the ICATU was organising surprise action to create confusion at the 11th Session of the Conference, expecially in view of the recent admission of Oman and the presence of a delegation from that country at the Conference.

&htab;39.&htab;The Government states that the two members of the ICATU delegation in question did have valid admission visas but they held diplomatic passports issued by Democratic Yemen and not by Bahrain or Oman. Moreover, the names in the passports did not correspond to the bearers' real names. Accordingly, continues the Government, when these two persons attempted to register with the Conference secretariat, the secretariat refused to register them and called on the competent Jordanian authorities to remove them from the Conference. According to the Government, one of these persons is a member of the so-called "People's Front for the Liberation of Oman" and the other belongs to the so-called "People's Front for the Liberation of Bahrain".

&htab;40.&htab;The Government points out that the two persons concerned were subsequently sent to the country of their choice.

&htab;41.&htab;After the Secretary-General of the ICATU made a disturbance in the hotel reception hall, the Workers' group of the Conference met and decided to set up a committee to look into the matter. The Jordanian Minister of Labour himself told the committee that Mr. Jalloud had used imposters in order to upset the running of the Conference. Apologies were made to Mr. Jalloud for what he had suffered - although he was the cause of the situation - and the Conference continued without further referance to the event. According to the Government, most delegations stated that the expulsion of the two individuals had cleared the air at the Conference and contributed to its success.

&htab;42.&htab;The Committee notes that this case concerns the expulsion from Jordan on 6 March 1983 of two members of the ICATU observer delegation to the 11th Session of the Arab Labour Conference which was being held there from 6 to 16 March 1983. The Committee also notes the Government's justification for the expulsions, namely that the persons concerned held false passports and had entered Jordan with the intention of disrupting the Conference.

&htab;43.&htab;The Committee has stated in the past that, while denial of entry to aliens or expulsion from its territory of aliens is the sovereign right of a State, nevertheless, the right of trade unions to become affiliated to international workers' organisations necessarily involves the right for them to maintain normal contact and to participate in trade union activities, such as labour conferences. The corollary of this right is that the formalities to which trade unionists and trade union leaders are subject in seeking entry to the territory of a State or in attending to trade union business there should be based on objective criteria and be free of anti-union discrimination. [See, for example, 211th Report, Case No. 1044 (Dominican Republic), para. 602.] In the present case the Government, although stating that the two trade union delegates held false passports has produced no concrete evidence to that effect, nor has it substantiated its suspicion - apparently based on an ICATU memorandum circulated a year earlier and criticising the choice of Jordan as the host country for the 11th Session of the Conference - that they had entered the country to disrupt the Arab Labour Conference. On the other hand, the complainant organisation itself does not provide detailed information as to the identities of the two members of its delegation to the 11th Session of the Arab Labour Conference. Nor does it explain why the two persons chose to be flown to Greece rather than to the countries whose workers they purport to represent. In view of the contradictory nature of the information before it and the fact that neither the complainant nor the Government substantiate their version of the facts, the Committee considers that it is not in a position to reach a conclusion as to whether or not the alleged expulsion constituted a violation of the principles of freedom of association. The question as to whether the Government's action violated article 15 of the Constitution of the Arab Labour Organisation is one that falls within the competence of the appropriate bodies of that organisation and not within that of the Committee. The Committee accordingly recommends that this case does not call for further examination.

&htab;44.&htab;In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.

&htab;45.&htab;The complaint is contained in a communication from the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) dated 18 August 1983. The Government replied in a communication dated 11 January 1984.

&htab;46.&htab;Chile has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;47.&htab;The complainant alleges that between 8 and 10 August 1983 the premises of four trade union organisations (the National Confederation of Peasants and Indigeneous Persons "El Surco", the National Confederation of Workers of the Building and Building Material Industries, the National Confederation of Metallurgical Workers - CONSTRAMET - and the National Confederation of Textile Workers) were searched without warrant by members of the uniformed Chilean police and the National Information Office (CNI).

&htab;48.&htab;According to the complainant, the police forces committed acts of repression against trade union leaders of these four organisations, destroyed the furniture and other fixtures in the premises and took away correspondence and trade union documents from the files.

&htab;49.&htab;The complainant adds that the leaders of the above-mentioned trade union organisations received death threats both directly and by telephone. Finally, the complainant points out that the President and Secretaries-General of these organisations were banished to inhospitable regions in the south of Chile or expelled from the country.

&htab;50.&htab;The Government states that the complaint presented by the WFTU is a repetition of accusations which have been made in the past. After referring to the constitutional and legal provisions in force which guarantee the inviolability of the home and all private communications, including documents and correspondence, the Government points out that any illegal act of deprivation, perturbation or threat regarding the legitimate exercise of this constitutional right is grounds for seeking the application by the Court of Appeals of the necessary measures for the re-establishment of justice and the protection of the person concerned. The Government states that it has no knowledge that any of those persons affected by the alleged search, destruction of furniture and seizure of trade union documents has applied to the courts.

&htab;51.&htab;As regards the allegation concerning death threats by telephone made to trade union leaders, the Government states that it is impossible to prove the truth of such affirmations since it is convinced that they are made with the sole object of discrediting it. The Government also points out that it has no knowledge that the persons allegedly threatened in this way have requested an investigation by the courts or made a criminal complaint.

&htab;52.&htab;With regard to the allegation concerning the banishing to the south of the country or expulsion of four leaders of the above-mentioned organisations, the Government refers to information which it furnished in connection with Cases Nos. 1170, 1186, 1200, 1205 and 1212 concerning Carlos Opazo Bascuñán, Sergio Troncoso Cisterna, Ricardo Lecaros González and Héctor Cuevas Salvador. The Government points out however that none of the leaders of the four above-mentioned organisations was arrested, banished or expelled from the country between 8 and 10 August 1983 nor subsequently. By the same token their trade union headquarters have not been searched.

&htab;53.&htab;The Committee notes that in the present case the complainant organisation has alleged that the premises of four trade union organisations were searched, that the furniture and other fixtures of the premises were destroyed and that correspondence and trade union documents were seized. The complainant has also alleged that leaders of these trade union organisations received death threats, both directly and by telephone, and that presidents and secretaries of the organisations were banished or expelled from the country.

&htab;54.&htab;The Committee observes firstly that some of the allegations of the complainant organisation (searching of the CONSTRAMET headquarters, banishing and expulsion of trade union leaders) have already been made to the Committee in connection with other cases [see 226th Report, Case No. 1170, paragraph 351, 230th Report, Case No. 1186, paragraph 581 and Case No. 1212, paragraphs 623 and 625] and that interim or definitive conclusions have been adopted in this connection. Therefore the Committee believes that it is not appropriate to examine these allegations within the framework of the present case.

&htab;55.&htab;As regards the alleged searching of the premises of the National Confederation of Peasants and Indigeneous Persons "El Surco", the National Confederation of Workers of the Building and Building Materials Industries and the National Confederation of Textile Workers and the destruction of furniture and documents of these organisations, the Committee notes that it appears from the statements of the Government that no proceedings have been initiated before the courts. Furthermore, given that the Government denies the allegations, the Committee is not in a position to be able to draw conclusions in this respect.

&htab;56.&htab;As regards the death threats allegedly received by trade union leaders of the four trade union organisations mentioned by the complainant, the Committee notes that the Government believes that these allegations were made solely with the purpose of discrediting it. The Committee observes furthermore that it appears from the statements of the Government that the persons allegedly threatened have lodged no criminal complaint with the courts. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that these allegations call for no further examination.

&htab;57.&htab;In the circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.

&htab;58.&htab;The Committee examined this case at its session in November 1983 and submitted an interim report to the Governing Body [see 230th Report, paras. 592 to 618, approved by the Governing Body at its 224th Session (November 1983)]. The Government subsequently sent its observations in a communication dated 11 January 1984.

&htab;59.&htab;Chile has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;66.&htab;The Committee takes note of the Government's statements, in particular, that the trade union leaders and trade unionists arrested on the premises of the National Trade Union of Independent Craftsmen on 30 April 1983 were released the same day and that the persons arrested for having taken part in the demonstrations on 1 May were immediately released as soon as they had proved their identity and confirmed their place of residence.

&htab;67.&htab;The Committee notes that the Government cannot accept the principle whereby acts committed against legislation in force by persons holding the position of trade union leader cannot be put down by the authorities. In this respect, the Committee wishes to point out that its task, when allegations of measures to deprive trade union leaders of their freedom are submitted to it, consists of examining, on the basis of available information, whether such measures have been taken because of trade union activities in the true sense of the term. Although the bearer of a trade union appointment does not, by virtue of his position, have the right to transgress legal provisions in force, neither should the latter infringe upon the basic guarantees of freedom of association, nor sanction activities which, in accordance with generally recognised principles of freedom of association, should be considered as legal trade union activities. When allegations of measures taken against trade union leaders are submitted to the Committee, its role is basically limited to examining the above-mentioned issues.

&htab;68.&htab;The Committee also notes that the Government denies that a group of individuals worked in co-operation with the police in breaking up a public gathering in the Plaza Artesanos on 1 May 1983. With respect to the alleged violent actions of the above-mentioned group of individuals, the Committee notes that the Examining Magistrate having reached no conclusion whatsoever, declared a general dismissal of the proceedings. In view of the fact that the complainants alleged that some of the members of this group already acted in an almost identical way in the same place on 2 December 1982, the Committee wishes to stress that events of this nature considerably hamper the exercise of trade union rights and expresses the hope that the authorities will take the necessary measures to prevent them from recurring in the future.

&htab;69.&htab;Moreover, the Committee notes the Government's statement that the Committee lacks objectivity in its conclusions in its 230th Report based on information from the complainants that there was "co-ordination" between the police and a group of individuals. According to the Government, this seriously damages the honour of the Armed Forces and it asks what kind of proof is available to warrant such a conclusion. In this connection, the Committee draws the Government's attention to its first reply (see 230th Report, para. 602) in which it did not deny the alleged co-ordination between the said group of individuals and the police, but limited itself to stating that: "the courts were notified of these events; after carrying out a full investigation, they were unable, unfortunately, to obtain the expected positive results. The Government condemns the aforementioned acts of violence and declares that it will deal severely with those found responsible by the courts". It therefore is understandable that in such circumstances the Committee, in its 230th Report, expressed "its concern that, according to the complainants , a group of indivduals were involved in violent action and co-ordinated with the police in breaking up a public meeting in the Plaza de los Artesanos". The Committee would stress that in its conclusion it expressed its concern over something reported by the complainants, which had not been denied by the Government, without deciding at any time that there had, in fact, been "co-ordination". In addition, in respect of this aspect of the case, the Committee made no definitive pronouncement as is indicated by the fact that it requested the Government to send it the judgements of the trial being held in relation with this group's activities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Committee lacks objectivity on an issue concerning which it has made no decision while awaiting the receipt of additional information from the Government.

&htab;70.&htab;With respect to the death of two persons during the National Protest Day of 11 May 1983, the Committee notes that the Government denies that these deaths resulted from shots fired by members of the security forces and that those allegedly responsible for these acts have been discharged of any responsibility by the 14th Court of Criminial Investigation, which ruled that the case should be stayed.

&htab;71.&htab;The Committee notes that the Government categorically denies and rejects the Committee's conclusion in its 230th Report concerning the death of two persons during the National Protest Day of 11 May 1983 and that it considers that the Committee has overstepped its functions since it judged and condemned as the authors of the two murders members of the Chilean security services, solely on the basis of the complainants' statements. The Government expresses its strongest protest against what it considers to be an intervention in aspects within the internal jurisdiction of the country which have no relation to trade union problems. In this respect, the Committee would point out that in the first reply given by the Government on this point (230th Report, para. 606), the Government did not deny that members of the Chilean security services may have been responsible for the death of two persons during the events which took place on 11 May 1983, but merely limited itself to stating that the 14th Court of Criminal Investigation was looking into the responsibility of the alleged offenders. The Committee therefore concluded that the issue being heard before the 14th Court of Criminal Investigation was whether the officers in question were guilty by fault or negligence, and not the issue of whether they had been responsible for the deaths of the two persons, a point which the Committee considered evident given that the Government had not denied it expressly. The Committee would emphasise that the examination of allegations relating to the death of persons due to demonstrations which, according to the complainants, were of a trade union character, are not at all outside the Committee's competence in so far as the said demonstrations were allegedly trade union activities; therefore, there is no intervention in matters falling within the internal jurisdiction of the country. On the other hand, the Committee stresses that its conclusion in its 230th Report that it "deplores the death of two persons during the National Protest Day of 11 May 1983 as a result of shots fired by the Chilean security services" in no way prejudges the existence of criminal responsibility or guilt on their part.

&htab;72.&htab;With respect to the allegation that police repression on the National Protest Day of 11 May resulted in hundreds of arrests and dozens of wounded, the Committee notes that it appears from the Government's reply that this Protest Day was held for political reasons; furthermore, the Government cannot accept there is any mention of police repression because the alleged number of arrests and wounded was the outcome of the violence unleashed by the demonstrators (who erected barricades, burned tyres, stoned vehicles, assaulted the police, sabotaged electric cables and caused considerable damage to property).

&htab;73.&htab;In these circumstances, since the Government states that the National Day of Protest of 11 May 1983 degenerated into criminal actions against individuals and property and as the complainants merely point out - without giving further details - that the violent police repression resulted in hundreds of arrests and dozens of wounded, the Committee can only deplore the climate of violence in which the National Protest Day of 11 May 1983 took place.

&htab;74.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and, in particular, the following conclusions:

(a) With respect to the alleged violence of a group of individuals in breaking up a public demonstration in the Plaza Artesanos on 1 May 1983, the Committee notes that the Examining Magistrate did not reach any conclusions whatsoever and declared a general dismissal of the proceedings. The Committee takes note that the Government denies that the said group of individuals acted in co-operation with the police. The Committee wishes to stress that violence, such as that committed by the above-mentioned group, seriously hampers the exercise of trade union rights and it expresses the hope that the authorities will take the necessary measures to prevent them from recurring in the future.

(b) With respect to the death of two persons during the National Protest Day of 11 May 1983, the Committee notes that the Government denies that these deaths were the result of bullets fired by members of the security services and refers, in support of its statement, to a decision taken by the 14th Court of Criminal Investigation. (c) Finally, the Committee deplores the climate of violence in which the National Protest Day of 11 May 1983 took place.

&htab;75.&htab;The complaint is contained in a communication from the State Confederation of Medical Trade Unions (CESM) dated 23 May 1983. The CESM sent additional information in communications dated 24 June 1983 and 6 February 1984. The Government replied in a communication dated 10 October 1983.

&htab;76.&htab;Spain 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).

&htab;77.&htab;The State Confederation of Medical Trade Unions (CESM) alleges that on 25 March 1983, in accordance with the provisions of the Spanish Constitution, Act 8/80, to promulgate a Worker's Charter, dated 10 March 1980, Royal Legislative Decree 17/77 dated 4 March 1977 and Royal Legislative Decree 156/79 dated 2 February 1979, a strike was declared on 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of April 1983 by the social security medical staff and staff of clinics, provincial hospitals and medical centres grouped together, administered and supported under the social security system throughout the Spanish territory, and that all the procedural requirements set forth in the above-mentioned regulations regarding advance notice had been complied with. In the same way, on 16 April 1983 the Confederation proposed a minimum number of staff to guarantee the coverage of medical services during the period of the strike, given the public service character of the health service. The National Institute of Health, which is the Spanish administrative body responsible for the staff who had been called to strike, in a communication dated 18 April 1983 which referred to the regulations in force in Spain with regard to strikes (and in particular the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 8 April 1981 which is considered of fundamental importance to the definition and scope of the right to strike and the interpretation of section 28.2 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978), informed the CESM that in their view the establishment of minimum essential services during the period of the medical strike was the responsibility of the governmental authority.

&htab;78.&htab;In communications dated 18 April 1983 from the CESM to the National Institute of Health and to the Civil Governor of Madrid, the Confederation requested the Government to determine the corresponding minimum number of staff required to provide services during the medical strike, without prejudice to the actual holding of the strike and the exercise of the doctors' right to strike, but with account being taken of their obligation to respect the rights of citizens using the services affected by the strike to health and health care.

&htab;79.&htab;The complainant points out that, notwithstanding the above, the strike which had been called took place before negotiations between the parties could result in a satisfactory agreement, and that on 27 April 1983 a further strike was called for 10, 12, 17 and 19 May. Once again the procedural requirements prescribed by the regulations in force were complied with, without the governmental authority establishing the minimum number of staff required or which staff members should be required to work, despite the requests made, as during the previous strike, to the responsible authority.

&htab;80.&htab;However, the CESM adds that as regards the province of Madrid, it appears that one member of the CESM who was on strike, but not the strike committee nor any member of the trade union organisation, received a photocopy of the communication from the Civil Governor of Madrid to the Provincial Director of the National Institute of Health (INSALUD) of Madrid, which established the specific minimum number of professional and auxiliary staff to be covered by the doctors assigned to the out-patient (ambulatory) institutions of INSALUD during the strike. Without prejudice to the fact that the minimum number of staff established in this communication may hinder the exercise of the right to strike by establishing that the attendant functional unit in out-patient institutions is constituted by each doctor, and that each and every doctor in the out-patient institutions must perform minimum services, it is incontestable that the actual non-communication of the resolution in question either to the strike committee or the doctors called upon to strike presupposes a de facto limitation and infringement of the right to strike, and constitutes a serious failure by the administration to perform its obligations in disputes of this nature. This failure must furthermore be considered intentional in as far as there was in fact interference by some executive bodies of the hospital and out-patient centres. In an arbitrary manner and according to the whim of each management or official responsable for the different units, and depending upon the district or province concerned, notices were posted up establishing the minimum number of staff to be covered and the contents of which varied haphazardly according to the geographical location of the centre. This appeared to be more a form of strike breaking by the administration than the uniform fixing of the scope of the strike throughout the Spanish territory.

&htab;81.&htab;As regards out-patient (ambulatory) institutions the CESM points out that the governmental authority had stipulated in particular the following points: (the complainant does not specify the province to which these points apply)

&htab;"1. Home visits: all requests for home visits must be followed up.

&htab;2. The management of the centres in question will notify, as a matter of the greatest urgency, and in the name of this Civil Government, each and every employee, on an individual and authentic basis, assigned to provide the minimum services covered by this Resolution, with copy of the notification being sent to this Civil Government."

&htab;82.&htab;With regard to the first point, the complainant continues that such an obligation clearly does not correspond to what should be understood by minimum service which ought, as is the usual practice, to mean exclusively emergency services. What is more, even the formal assignation which, as stated in paragraph 2 above was ordered by the Civil Government itself was not respected, a situation which in the provinces gave rise to criteria whereby absolutely all the out-patient doctors were assigned to minimum services and required to be present and provide their nominal work services.

&htab;83.&htab;Finally, the complainant states that Spanish legislation and labour practice does not provide sufficient protection and guarantees for cases in which some degree of restriction of the right to strike would be compatible with the law, as in the case of doctors. Thus there is no adequate, impartial and rapid mechanism for conciliation and arbitration in which those concerned could participate at every stage, with the result that the doctors of the social security health institutions find themselves without any defence against the Spanish administration.

&htab;84.&htab;In its communication of 6 February 1984, the CESM supplies a copy of the judgement of the Territorial High Court of Madrid (Fourth Court), dated 23 November 1983, relating to the minimum services to be maintained during the strike called by the CESM for several days in April 1983.

&htab;85.&htab;The Government states that, on 18 April 1983, the State Confederation of Medical Trade Unions requested from the competent governmental authority the establishment of the corresponding minimum number of medical staff whose attendance was required during a strike which had been called for the 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 and 29 April, with the complainant organisation stating that it had submitted to the provincial management of the National Institute of Health (INSALUD) a detailed report on the minimum numbers to be established. However the organisation in question had not transmitted to the governmental authority (the Civil Government) any sufficiently detailed proposal regarding the minimum services to be fixed.

&htab;86.&htab;The Government adds that the Civil Government of Madrid, taking into account the great urgency of the time limits involved and the measures to be established acted, both before and during the strike, not only on the basis of written information but also through verbal proposals made by the provincial management of INSALUD, a technical body that is fully aware of the existing situation and which had furthermore already analysed what necessary minimum services would be required, in agreement with the management of the hospital centres affected and their strike committees.

&htab;87.&htab;The Government continues that petitions were successively received by the Civil Government from the management of specific hospital centres requesting the establishment of minimum services and, in the same way, in some cases the petitions were received directly from the provincial management of INSALUD. As regards the former, the petitions were duly submitted, as indicated above, to the provincial management of INSALUD for information and action. Logically, minimum services were established only in those centres which were significantly affected by the strike. Thus the resolutions of the Civil Government to establish minimum services were issued in pursuance of the concrete proposals which were formulated and with account being taken of the real repercussion of the strike in the different centres and, in any case, in direct contact with the provincial management of INSALUD. The Government sends photocopies of the resolutions under which the minimum services were established and, prior to their implementation, the governmental authority in each case informed the provincial management of INSALUD, the provincial labour management and the management and strike committees of the centres affected, all of whom, according to the Government, the Civil Government had insisted should be notified.

&htab;88.&htab;Finally, the Government points out that the conduct of the competent governmental authority was at all times based on the objective of maintaining the essential medical services in operation in extremely serious circumstances such as those requiring the provision of the health services to which all citizens are entitled.

&htab;96.&htab;In the circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the present report and in particular the following conclusions:

&htab;The Committee expresses the hope that when doctors strike in out-patients/ambulatory institutions, the authorities will fully take into account the criteria set out in the judgement of the Territorial High Court of Madrid dated 23 November 1983 concerning the minimum services to be maintained. The Committee would draw attention in general to the fact that it is important for provisions regarding minimum services in the event of a strike in an essential service to be established clearly, be applied strictly and be made known to those concerned in due time.

&htab;111.&htab;The complaint by the Greek Federation of Bank Employee Unions (OTOE) is contained in a communication dated 25 July 1983. It was supported by the ex-President of the Athens Labour Centre, now President of the Free Democratic Trade Union Movement, Mr. Karakitsos. The Government replied in a communication dated 27 October 1983.

&htab;112.&htab;Greece 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).

&htab;113.&htab;In its communication of 25 July 1983, the complainant organisation states that, in its opinion, the measures relating to the right to strike taken by the Greek Government in adopting Act No. 1365/1983 respecting the socialisation of public and public utility undertakings are contrary to the general principles laid down in Convention Nos. 87 and 98, ratified by Greece in 1961.

&htab;114.&htab;In a memorandum attached to its complaint, the OTOE explains that nearly 100 per cent of the 40,000 bank employees in the 32 banks existing in Greece at present are unionised in 40 primary unions, all of which belong to the Federation. These banks include banks of a semi-public character (where the State or public entities have a majority of shares), private banks and foreign banks. Eighty-five per cent of the employees work in semi-public banks, 10 per cent in private banks and 5 per cent in foreign banks. In 1982 an agreement was signed between the 40,000 OTOE bank employees and bank managements establishing a unified salary scale. This agreement was ratified by the Government. The complainant organisation goes on to explain that bank employees are not civil servants but belong to the private sector and every year negotiate their conditions of work by means of collective agreements.

&htab;115.&htab;Until May 1982 the right to strike of primary unions and of the OTOE in the banking sector was regulated by union statutes, law and practice, i.e. the decision to call a strike rested with the executive councils of the trade union organisations. The councils were elected every two years by all bank employees in each union according to the system of proportional representation. The reason for this was that the bank employees are spread out among more than 1,000 bank branches throughout the country and any ballot among rank and file members would take at least 15 to 20 days.

&htab;116.&htab;In any event, the complainant organisation states, the union statutes provide for the possibility of convening general assemblies if one-twentieth of the members so request, and the decision-making authority of these assemblies overrides that of the executive councils of the primary trade union organisations. Consequently, if an executive council takes an irresponsible decision to call a wildcat strike, the union's members can make use of the organisation's statutory provisions to annul that decision or even dismiss the executive council and elect another. In April 1976, the Government attempted to change the strike decision procedure in bank unions by instituting balloting among rank and file members. This move was opposed by the OTOE, and the Government withdrew that amendment.

&htab;117.&htab;In July 1982, Act No. 1264/1982 respecting freedom of association was enacted providing, like Act No. 330/1976, that in primary trade union organisations covering a large area or the whole of Greece (which is the case in the banking sector), the decision to call a strike rested with the executive council unless the union's statutes provided otherwise. This law also excluded banks from the public and public utility sector.

&htab;118.&htab;In May 1983, suddenly and without consulting the trade unions, the Greek Government adopted a law on the socialisation of public and public utility undertakings and modified the strike decision procedure in undertakings belonging to the socialised public sector. Section 4 of the law, which was adopted despite widespread protests, provides that only registered members of primary unions may decide to call a strike, thus abolishing the established procedures described above.

&htab;119.&htab;According to the complainant organisation, this section of the law imposes a very serious limitation on the right to strike of bank employees since these employees are spread out among more than 100 bank branches throughout the country. Over half of the OTOE's members are employed in hundreds of branches outside the Athens-Piraeus region, and a strike vote among union members thus scattered throughout Greece entails a complicated procedure able to produce results only when the need for strike action has long passed.

&htab;120.&htab;Moreover, the decision to call a strike is valid only if adopted by a majority of the registered union members. In other words, employees who are ill, who are on leave or who normally do not take part in voting will not be counted in calculating the majority required to call a strike. According to the complainant organisation, the law thus favours no-strike decisions. Furthermore, section 4 of the law allows a primary union which is a member of the federation (OTOE) not to comply with a strike decision taken by the competent bodies of the federation. This means, the complainant organisation states, that 300 registered members of the Bank of Greece Employees' Union (which has 3,000 registered members) can block a strike decision taken by the federation (OTOE) until a nation-wide ballot among Bank of Greece employees results in 1,501 votes endorsing the decision to strike taken by the OTOE.

&htab;121.&htab;In conclusion, the OTOE considers that this legislation, rather than constituting a reasonable limitation of the right to strike, virtually abolishes that right in bank unions in Greece.

&htab;122.&htab;The Government states that section 4 of Act No. 1365 of 22 June 1983 does not abolish the right to strike but, on the contrary, is intended to give all workers the possibility of exercising that right in accordance with the democratic system of the principle of the majority (50 per cent ] 1 per cent) of unionised workers in order that the basis of popular participation may be broadened.

&htab;123.&htab;According to the Government, the law protects the right to strike and the right to work as well as the interest of the community against the narrow interests of certain organised minorities. In recent years, it points out, strikes have been called by a limited number of trade unionists motivated more by political interests than by a desire to promote and defend the economic and occupational interests of their members.

&htab;124.&htab;The Government recalls the constitutional nature of the right to strike and states that Act No. 1264 of 1982 respecting the democratisation of the trade union movement and the protection of workers' trade union freedoms not only guarantees that right but prohibits employers from resorting to strike breaking or lock-outs and from dismissing workers during a strike.

&htab;125.&htab;It adds that the regulation of the right to strike under Act. No. 1365 of 1983 applies only to socialised undertakings, including banks, and explains why, in its opinion, banks in Greece have a public utility character that warrants regulation of this right in the banking sector.

&htab;136.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report, in particular the following conclusions:

(a) the Committee considers that the condition required for calling a strike in the banking sector (acceptance by a qualified majority of all the members of a trade union organisation whose activities cover a large area), may raise problems of compatibility with the principles of freedom of association; it follows that the requirement of a simple majority of those voting would be in closer conformity with these principles; (b) the Committee therefore invites the Government to reconsider this question in the light of the principles mentioned above and to take appropriate measures to bring the legislation more closely into line with them;

(c) the Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to this matter.

&htab;137.&htab;The Committee has already examined this case on two previous occasions, the most recent being at its November 1983 meeting when it presented interim conclusions to the Governing Body.[230th Report, paragraphs 459 to 474, approved by the Governing Body at its 224th Session (November 1983).] Since then, the Capitol Employees Organising Group (CEOG) has sent additional information in communications dated 7 December 1983 and 18 January 1984. The Government transmitted further observations in communications dated 1 and 15 February 1984.

&htab;138.&htab;The United States of America has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;139.&htab;The Committee recalls that this case concerns a claim made by the CEOG, a union formed in December 1979, for exclusive bargaining rights in respect of employees of the Senate restaurants, the majority of whom the CEOG claims to represent. The CEOG had alleged that not only had its petitions for recognition been systematically refused by those responsible for the administration of the Senate but that, in addition, its members had suffered harassment and discrimination. The Committee had noted that a high-level Senate study into the situation had been undertaken and it expressed the hope that both this study, as well as a continuing dialogue between the parties, would ensure a situation in which the workers concerned might carry out normal trade union activities in full conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

&htab;140.&htab;When it last examined the case in November 1983, the Committee noted that the results of the Senate Committee study into the situation of the CEOG had led the Senate to call for a further examination of the question of turning the restaurant management over to private firms (which are subject to the general labour legislation) and to organise a ballot amongst the restaurant workers concerned. The Committee also noted that the complainant had supplied further information concerning management harassment of its members by inviting other unions to the place of work, by refusing to reply to petitions made by the complainant, by refusing time off to employees and by interfering in the polling of the employees.

&htab;141.&htab;While appreciating the thoroughness of the studies carried out by the Senate Committee and the time taken to organise the ballot, the Committee recalled that the CEOG's original claim for recognition dated back to March 1980 and that the Senate had been examining the question since August 1982. The Committee pointed out that excessively lengthy proceedings to determine the status of employees and the bodies claiming to represent them can only result in a growing sense of injustice and it accordingly requested the Government to send a copy of the findings and recommendations of the Senate Rules Committee study of the question which, the Committee hoped, would be completed rapidly. Meantime, the Committee once again expressed the hope that a dialogue would continue between the parties and that the conclusions of the further study would result in a situation in which the workers concerned might be able to carry out normal trade union activities in full conformity with the principles of freedom of association.

&htab;142.&htab;As regards the alleged harassment of unionised staff, the Committee took note of the Government's explanations regarding the treatment of the petitions submitted by the union and the refusal to grant part-time off, and pointed out that if these explanations had been given to the staff involved at the various meetings that had taken place with the employer and the Senate Committee itself, the ongoing tension in the Senate restaurant might have been avoided. The Committee recalled that no person should be prejudiced in his employment by reason of his trade union membership even if that trade union is not recognised by the employer as representing the majority of the workers concerned. It requested that, pending the outcome of the further Senate study, care would be taken to avoid any form of discrimination towards Senate restaurant workers who were members of the CEOG.

&htab;143.&htab;As regards the opinion poll itself, the Committee, while making the preliminary observation that the running of the ballot, as well as the layout and content of the ballot form did not jeopardise trade union rights, observed that the Government had not yet had an opportunity to respond to certain allegations that had been made by the complainant in connection with the poll.

&htab;144.&htab;In all the circumstances, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to reach the following interim conclusions:

(a) The Committee requests the Government to send a copy of the findings and recommendations of the Senate study into the situation of Senate restaurant workers, which will bear upon any possible recognition of the Capitol Employees Organising Group, and which the Committee hopes will be completed rapidly. (b) The Committee again expresses the hope that a dialogue may continue between the parties, and that the conclusions of the study will result in a situation in which the workers concerned may be able to carry out normal trade union activities in full conformity with the principles of freedom of association. (c) As regards the alleged harassment of the members and leaders of the complainant union, the Committee, while appreciating the Government's explanations of these incidents, would point out that no person should be prejudiced in his employment by reason of his trade union membership or activities, even if that union is not recognised by the employer as representing the majority of workers concerned. The Committee trusts that care will be taken to avoid any form of discrimination towards CEOG members. (d) The Committee requests the Government to transmit as soon as possible its observations on the specific allegations of employer interference in the opinion poll that was taken amongst the restaurant workers in September 1983.

&htab;145.&htab;In its communication of 7 December 1983, the CEOG alleges that its leaders were informed by the management that they could no longer use the room where they had held their monthly meetings over the last four years and that the harassment of employees who have any contact with the CEOG was continuing. In its communication of 18 January 1984, the CEOG states that one of its outspoken activists did not receive a Christmas gift from the management, when all other supervisors did, presumably because of her connection with the union.

&htab;146.&htab;In its communication dated 1 February 1984, the Government transmits observations that were prepared by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, together with the official minutes recording that Committee's discussion of the Senate restaurant employees' situation.

&htab;147.&htab;The Senate Committee reports that, pursuant to public notice, it met on 1 November 1983, with the Honourable Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., Chairman, presiding. Seven other senators, members of the Committee, were also present. The meeting, being a public one, could be attended by any restaurant worker or member of the public. The Chairman submitted to the meeting the report of the poll taken of the restaurant workers on the question of organisation for the purposes of collective bargaining and noted that the preference of the employees was not to organise for such a purpose. The employees had also indicated a marked preference for maintaining the present system rather than the contracting out of restaurant operations to private firms. The Chairman stated that the results of the poll were not binding on the Committee or on the Senate and that no immediate action on the part of the Committee was required.

&htab;148.&htab;The Chairman, noting that there was always room for improvement in the operations of the Senate restaurants, and stating that he had suggested to the Architect of the Capitol that an advisory committee be established to suggest improvements, asked the Committee to consider the idea of such an advisory committee and requested that this proposal be maintained on the Committee's agenda.

&htab;149.&htab;Given the overwhelming preference expressed by the employees to maintain the present system of operation of the Senate restaurants, no further action by the Rules Committee on the question of giving recognition to any representatives of the restaurant workers for the purpose of collective bargaining was therefore contemplated.

&htab;150.&htab;More specifically, with regard to the various detailed allegations made by the CEOG, the Government provides the following information or replies. The management of the Senate restaurants did not encourage a number of employees to prepare and distribute a leaflet attacking the CEOG. To the best of the management's knowledge, the leaflet in question was prepared and distributed by a group of employees but the management was not involved either in its preparation or its distribution. Nor did the management conduct any meetings with certain Hispanic-American employees regarding the ballot, although some meetings may have been held by the employees themselves. There was no instruction given by the management as to how the ballot paper should be marked. In the one instance mentioned by the complainant, in its letter of 21 September 1983, the management official reports that, at the request of the employees concerned, he was interpreting the ballot to those employees who could not read English.

&htab;151.&htab;As regards the balloting procedures, the Government points out that the Rules Committee conducted the ballot as a third party and not as management or union. All the procedures were discussed and voted on in open session of the Rules Committee. The procedures for balloting were posted on the Senate restaurant bulletin boards on 26 August 1983 and an individual copy of the procedures was given to each employee on 2 September 1983. The ballot was conducted on 12 and 13 September 1983 in accordance with these procedures. The votes were counted on 14 September 1983 and certified as accurate by the Rules Committee staff and by the Vice-President of the CEOG, Ruth Bennett. The Government emphasised that at no time prior to the ballot, or subsequently, was any complaint made or question raised about the balloting procedures, either by the CEOG or any other restaurant worker.

&htab;152.&htab;It is true, however, the Government points out, that the Architect of the Capitol has denied a meeting room to the CEOG. In the past, explains the Government, the Architect has made an exception to the rules which authorise meeting space in the restaurant rooms only for official business of the US Senate restaurant. That exception is no longer being made for the CEOG and only official business will be conducted from now on in US Senate restaurant space. It is also true, states the Government, that a supervisor did not receive a Christmas gift; this had no relation to membership of the CEOG as is clear from the fact that other supervisors who are active members of the CEOG did receive gifts, which are given on the basis of a positive contribution to the operation of the restaurants during 1983.

&htab;153.&htab;More generally, the Government indicates that after the September 1983 ballot, the Architect of the Capitol met with all the restaurant employees in four groups. He expressed gratitude to them for the vote of confidence as shown in the ballot results and pledged to continue to try to see to it that employees are fairly treated. Employees have also been reminded through bulletin board postings of existing grievance procedures allowing individuals access to their manager, the restaurant director and to the office of the Architect of the Capitol. It should also be noted, adds the Government, that senators and staff of the Rules Committee are available at all times to talk to employees of the restaurants, and the employees often avail themselves of this opportunity to discuss employment issues and grievances.

&htab;154.&htab;The Government emphasises that no form of discrimination exists towards CEOG employees. In fact, care has been taken by the restaurant manager not to discipline CEOG members so as not to provoke complaints of discrimination. According to the Government, at times this has worked to the detriment of restaurant operations since disciplinary action might have been justified.

&htab;155.&htab;The Government adds that the action taken by the Senate Rules Committee is not binding on future congresses, and the Rules Committee or the full Senate could take different action in the future. According to the Government, legislation is pending in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to include the Congress under certain provisions of federal law relating to employment and workers' rights. It attaches copies of the three bills involved which are currently pending before the committees to which they were referred.

&htab;156.&htab;The Committee notes that the Senate Committee study into the situation of the CEOG has concluded with the decision, based on the results of the September 1983 poll of the employees concerned, to maintain the present system with the possible establishment of an advisory committee to work with the restaurant management and employees. The Committee also notes that draft legislation is being examined to include Congress under certain provisions of federal law relating to employment conditions and workers' rights, which would apparently entitle Congress employees, such as the Senate restaurant workers, to coverage under the National Labour Relations Act.

&htab;157.&htab;The Committee recalls that the results of the September 1983 ballot showed that 81 per cent of the employees concerned did not wish to become members of a union for collective bargaining purposes. Moreover, the Committee decided at its previous examination of this case that the layout and content of the ballot form that was used did not jeopardise trade union rights. The Government has specifically denied the complainant's allegations of employer interference in the poll, pointing out that no complaint or query was made either before or after the poll about the balloting procedures, counting or organisation. In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the employees concerned may soon be entitled to coverage under the National Labour Relations Act, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case calls for no further examination.

&htab;158.&htab;As regards the recent allegations of continued harassment of unionised staff and the withdrawal of permission to use a meeting room, the Committee notes the Government's explanations that the employer (the Architect of the Capitol) is making every effort (meeting with all the staff, bulletin board postings, putting aside of disciplinary action) to accommodate the CEOG members but in the case of allowing meeting space in the restaurant rooms, must apply the rules which allow this only for official business. The Committee can only express its regret that, notwithstanding the question of recognition for bargaining purposes, such facilities have been withdrawn not only because freedom of assembly for trade union purposes constitutes one of the fundamental elements of trade union rights but also because it is precisely this kind of incident which contributes to the ongoing tension which has been complained of in this case. In view of the fact that the staff involved may soon fall within the scope of the National Labour Relations Act, the Committee would meantime express the hope that the Architect will re-examine the question of providing meeting space for trade union purposes on the restaurant premises.

&htab;159.&htab;The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the three draft laws that are currently being examined.

&htab;160.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and, in particular, the following conclusions:

(a) The Committee considers that the aspect of the case concerning the recognition of the Capitol Employees Organising Group for collective bargaining purposes does not call for further examination.

(b) As regards the alleged continuing harassment of unionised staff, the Committee notes that the employer is making every effort to accommodate CEOG members, but expresses the hope that it will re-examine the question of allowing meeting space for trade union purposes on the restaurant premises.

(c) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the three draft laws that are currently being examined.

&htab;176.&htab;The complaint is contained in a communication from the World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession (WCTOP) dated 24 August 1983. The Government replied in a communication dated 2 November 1983.

&htab;177.&htab;Peru 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).

&htab;178.&htab;The WCOTP alleges that the Peruvian Government is indiscriminately discrediting non-governmental international organisations by accusing them of taking advantage of international co-operation in order to provide material support to the the "Sendero Luminoso" terrorist group. The complainant considers that such accusations constitute a serious obstacle to its action in favour of Peruvian teachers.

&htab;179.&htab;More specifically, the complainant goes on, the Peruvian authorities are disturbing the relations between national trade union organisations and international organisations by confiscating their mail. Between January and July of 1983 its affiliate, the Union of Peruvian Educational Workers (SUTEP), consisting at present of more than 90,000 teachers at all levels, tried on three occasions to send mail to the WCOTP (whose headquarters are in Morges, Switzerland), including important reports concerning co-operation with the SUTEP for defending its rights at the international level. None of the dispatches reached Morges.

&htab;180.&htab;The complainant adds that no other international correspondent of the SUTEP received mail from it during the same period. It would therefore seem that, by order of a higher authority, the Peruvian postal authority is systematically intercepting all SUTEP mail addressed abroad.

&htab;181.&htab;The complainant concludes by stating that such a measure seriously jeopardises the organisation's international relations and impairs the right of trade union organisations to affiliate with international organisations.

&htab;182.&htab;The Government states that a perusal of the complaint shows that the alleged violation would not be a violation of freedom of association but a violation of postal secrecy, an offence punishable under section V of the Peruvian Penal Code. The Government therefore considers that the complaint should be declared irreceivable and adds that those concerned may denounce the alleged offence to the judicial authorities.

&htab;186.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report, and in particular the following conclusions:

&htab;Considering that the right of trade union organisations to affiliate with international organisations (Article 5 of Convention No. 87) implies the right of national and international organisations to maintain contact, the Committee requests the Government to carry out an inquiry into the alleged confiscation of SUTEP mail addressed abroad (in particular mail addressed to the World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession) and to inform it of the outcome.

&htab;202.&htab;The complaint is contained in a joint communication from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the International Federation of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers (IFPAAW) dated 3 October 1983. The Government replied in communications of 22 November 1983 and 10 January 1984.

&htab;203.&htab;Colombia 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).

&htab;204.&htab;The ICFTU and the IFPAAW allege that Francisco Cristóbal Caro Montoya leader of the Workers' Union of the Banana Export Company (SINTRAEXPOBAN) was murdered on 15 August 1983 at 10.30 a.m. in his own home (in the Monterrey district of Currulao, Turbo, Antioquáa), when he returned from Currulao with the family shopping.

&htab;205.&htab;According to the complainants, when Mr. Caro arrived home, three persons dressed as baseball players, who had been waiting for him for about half an hour, riddled his body with 14 bullets, without any explanation being given for this act.

&htab;206.&htab;The complainants state that this murder is part of a brutal persecution campaign against various peasant trade union leaders and recall that they had already denounced to the ILO the murder of two peasant trade union leaders of the National Agrarian Federation (organisation to which SINTRAEXPOBAN is affiliated) in September 1982 and the abduction of another trade union leader in April 1983. According to the complainants, the authorities have not reached any conclusions on this matter.

&htab;207.&htab;The Government states that it deeply regrets the death of Mr. Francisco Cristúbal Caro Montoya, especially in view of the fact that he was a peasant trade union leader, involved in considerable work to attain better living and working conditions for agricultural workers.

&htab;208.&htab;The Government adds that, with a view to obtaining precise information on the circumstances surrounding these incidents and on the investigation being carried out by the 59th Court of the Criminal Division at Turbo (Antioquáa) and the trial against those responsible for such reprehensible actions, it has approached the commanders of the National Police force and the Army Brigade in the department of Antioquáa for information. As soon as it receives any information on the matter in hand, it will submit it to the Committee.

&htab;209.&htab;Nevertheless, the Government continues, this matter is not the outcome of any trade union persecution carried out by the State, which constantly attempts to safeguard individual rights; it was most probably committed by subversive elements of one of the small groups which, in spite of the authorities' constant efforts to attain an overall peaceful situation, continue to disturb public law and order.

&htab;210.&htab;The Committee notes the complainants' allegations concerning the murder of the peasant trade union leader Francisco Cristóbal Caro Montoya, as well as the Government's reply.

&htab;211.&htab;In particular, the Committee notes that the Government has stated that this union leader's death was not the outcome of any trade union persecution undertaken by the State and that it has advanced the theory that the said murder might have been carried out by subversive elements belonging to one of the groups continuing to disturb public law and order. The Committee also notes that the Government will submit information on the investigation being carried out by the 59th Court of the Criminal Division at Turbo and the trial against those responsible for the crime, as well as on the circumstances surrounding the events.

&htab;212.&htab;In this respect, the Committee deeply deplores the death of the trade union leader Francisco Cristóbal Caro Montoya. It draws the Government's attention to the fact that a climate of violence such as that in which this death took place is a very serious threat to the exercise of trade union rights. It recalls that freedom of association can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental human rights, and in particular those relating to human life and personal safety, are fully guaranteed and respected. The Committee asks the Government to send it the results of the judicial investigation undertaken into the murder of Mr. Caro Montoya and expresses the hope that any subsequent legal proceedings will make it possible to identify the persons responsible and to punish those who are guilty.

&htab;213.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the present report, and in particular the following conclusions:

(a) The Committee deeply deplores the death of the trade union leader Francisco Cristóbal Caro Montoya. It draws the attention of the Government to the fact that a climate of violence such as that in which this death took place is a very serious threat to the exercise of trade union rights. (b) The Committee recalls that freedom of association can only be exercised in conditions in which fundamental human rights and in particular those relating to human life and personal safety, are fully respected and guaranteed.

(c) The Committee asks the Government to send it the results of the judicial investigation under way into the death of the above-mentioned trade union leader and expresses the hope that any subsequent legal proceedings will make it possible to identify those responsible and to punish those who are guilty.

&htab;214.&htab;The Committee has examined on two occasions Case No. 1007 - in which the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) is the complainant - [See 208th Report, paras. 371-391 and 218th Report, paras. 437-466, approved by the Governing Body in its 216th and 221st Sessions of May-June 1981 and November 1982, respectively], and on one occasion Case No. 1129 - in which the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) and the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) are the complainants - [See 218th Report, paras. 467-481, approved by the Governing Body in its 221st Session (November 1982)] and Case No. 1169 - in which the Disputes Secretary of the Trade Union of Dockers, Employees and Office Staff of Corinto Docks (SEEOMC) is the complainant - [See 222nd Report, paras. 317-329, approved by the Governing Body in its 222nd Session (March 1983)]. With respect to these three cases, the Committee submitted interim reports to the Governing Body.

&htab;215.&htab;Subsequently, the Disputes Secretary of the SEEOMC submitted new allegations with respect to Case No. 1169 in a communication of 28 March 1983. Allegations within the framework of this case were also made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (in communications of 15 June, 15 July and 23 August 1983) and the WCL (in communications of 22 August and 29 November 1983). The Government sent certain observations in a communication dated 9 September 1983.

&htab;216.&htab;The complaint with respect to Case No. 1185 is contained in communications from the CLAT (2 March and 5 May 1983) and the WCL (22 June 1983). The Government sent certain observations in a communication dated 5 May 1983.

&htab;217.&htab;The complaint with respect to Case No. 1208 is contained in a communication from the Central of Nicaraguan Workers (CTN) of 9 May 1983. The Government replied in a communication of 29 August 1983.

&htab;218.&htab;Nicaragua has ratified the Freedom of Assocition and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;219.&htab;At the 69th Session (Geneva, 1983) of the International Labour Conference, the Government of Nicaragua proposed "the establishment of direct contacts between the Government and the International Labour Organisation with a view to examining questions relating to the application of Convention No. 87, particularly in the light of the new Decree adopted by the Government". The Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations expressed the hope that all the parties concerned would be associated with the direct contacts, and that they would lead to the removal of the difficulties encountered in the application of the Convention. It also invited the Government to supply further information as would permit the Committee to follow the above-mentioned matters as soon as the direct contacts had taken place (Report of the Committee, para. 86).

&htab;220.&htab;For its part, the Committee on Freedom of Association, before which several complaints concerning Nicaragua were pending, decided, at its meeting in November 1983, to adjourn its examination of Cases Nos. 1007, 1129, 1169, 1185 and 1208 in the hope that, during the direct contacts mission, the representative of the Director-General would be able to examine with the competent authorities the various aspects of the cases still pending and to obtain sufficient information to enable the Committee to examine these cases at its next meeting in February 1984. [See 230th Report, para. 10].

&htab;221.&htab;The Director-General of the ILO appointed Mr. Geraldo von Potobsky as his representative to carry out this mission, which took place in Managua from 4 to 13 December 1983.

&htab;222.&htab;During his mission, the representative of the Director-General spoke to by the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, Roberta Argüello Hurtado, the Minister of Labour, Virgilio Godoy Reyes, the Deputy Minister of Labour, Benedicto Meneses, and the Legal Advisor to the Ministry of the Interior, Melvin Wallace, and had a number of meetings with senior officials of the Ministry of Labour. He also met representatives of the following organisations: the Managing Board of Private Enterprises (COSEP), the National Union of Farmers and Stock-Breeders (UNAG), the Sandinista Central of Workers (CST), the Confederation of Trade Union Unity (CUS), the Central of Nicaraguan Workers (CTN), the Workers' Confederation of Nicaragua (CTN), the Association of Rural Workers (ATC) and the General Confederation of Workers-Independent (CGT-I).

&htab;223.&htab;At the end of his mission, the representative of the Director-General had a meeting with the Deputy Minister of Labour, Benedicto Meneses (in the absence of Minister Virgilio Godoy Reyes) and his collaborators. During the meeting, they went over the work that had been carried out and held a broad exchange of views on various aspects of trade union legislation and collective labour relations, a number of points concerning cases pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association and certain matters raised in the course of the representative of the Director-General's various conversations.

&htab;224.&htab;The Deputy Minister pointed out that in the Government's opinion many of the complaints brought before the ILO with regard to violations of freedom of association in Nicaragua lacked sufficient basis, were vague, did not contain enough data or facts and reflected more than anything a concerted attempt to harass the present authorities. Several of the allegations did not have anything to do with freedom of association. He felt that the ILO should be more strict with complainants and not pass on every single complaint to the Government indiscriminately. The Ministry of Labour had already told trade unions in Nicaragua that, before submitting a complaint to the ILO, it would be better to discuss and try to settle the problems with the country's labour authorities. So far the trade unions had not followed this suggestion.

&htab;225.&htab;The representative of the Director-General - according to the mission report - explained to the Deputy Minister the rules of procedure of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the problems that sometimes arise in the course of the examination of a case and the diffulty of obtaining all the necessary information. He emphasised the importance of the Government of Nicaragua answering all the allegations and sending all the necessary information so that the Committee on Freedom of Association could reach its conclusions in full knowledge of the facts. He thought it advisable to suggest that, on occasion, the Ministry itself might take the initiative of asking the complainant organisations in Nicaragua for more details about their complaints in order to seek possible solutions and send the relevant information to the ILO. In particular, the representative of the Director-General told the Deputy Minister that the ILO was still awaiting information from the Government on a list of trade unionists under arrest, as well as the text of the sentence handed down by the military court in connection with the death of Jorge Salazar Argüello, Vice-President of COSEP.

&htab;226.&htab;The representative of the Director-General took this opportunity to pass on a number of comments that had been voiced during his visit to COSEP, namely, that tripartism was not fully respected in the country and that, for example, the employers' organisation had not been consulted about new wage policies recently announced by the Ministry of Labour. The Deputy Minister explained that the Government did not intend excluding the employers from discussions on the subject but that the matter had been left in abeyance because of the current international tension over Nicaragua. The trade unions had already been involved in the discussions because, unlike the employers, they had taken the iniative to do so. The employers would in any case be consulted as planned.

&htab;227.&htab;Finally, the representative of the Director-General thanked the Deputy Minister for all the help he had received in carrying out the mission and for the collaboration of the Ministry of Labour officials in discussing the various problems and obtaining the relevant information.

&htab;228.&htab;The representative of the Director-General stated in his mission report that he had been offered every facility by the Ministry of Labour authorities to carry out his mission, for which he was most grateful. He also mentioned in the same report that he wanted to thank all those with whom he had spoken for the information they had been able to give him.

&htab;230.&htab;The section on this case in the report drawn up by the representative of the Director-General reads as follows:

Concerning the death of Jorge Salazar Argüello, Vice-President of the Managing Board of Private Enterprises (COSEP), the Committee requested the Government to send the text of the judgement of the military court on the military personnel responsible for the death of this employer leader and to indicate in virtue of what legal text a military court was dealing with this matter.

Information on this legal text was obtained from the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, who informed me that it was the Act concerning the organisation of military courts and provisional military penal proceedings (Decree No. 591 of 2 December 1980), section 18 of which states: 'The Military Courts shall be responsible for conducting penal proceedings in connection with any punishable act in which a member of the military personnel is implicated, even if one or more of the participants or the victim are civilians'. In order to obtain the text of the judgement handed down or any information on the subject, I requested an interview with the responsible official of the military court. The interview, which was set for Monday 12 December at 9 a.m., was cancelled at the last moment owing to other commitments of the said official and I was unable to arrange another meeting. Consequently, the text of this judgement, which was requested by the Committee, has still not been communicated.

The second point on which the Committee requested information concerns the proceedings instituted by the Supreme Court of Justice against employer leaders for crimes against the security of the State and other crimes. The Committee requested the Government to send the text of the judgement handed down on this matter by the court of first instance.

According to information supplied by the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, the public prosecutor did not present any criminal grounds for investigating the crime to which his attention had been drawn by the Court and no case was opened. All those involved are at liberty and, according to the President of the Court, the matter is therefore closed.

The last matter which is still pending concerns the allegation that the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) has, with the help of the Government, attempted to split COSEP. The Government has not yet replied specifically to the allegation that the FSLN has intervened by promoting parallel Government-backed organisations which have taken away seats in the Council of State from private-sector organisations.

According to the allegations, the organisations affected were the Union of Agricultural Producers (UPANIC) and the Confederation of Professional Associations of Nicaragua (CONAPRO). According to the Fundamental Statute of the Republic, article 16 of which lays down the composition of the Council of State, UPANIC and CONAPRO were each entitled to be represented by one member. Under the Revised Fundamental Statute (Decree No. 718 of 2 May 1982), UPANIC still has one member and an additional two members now represent the National Union of Farmers and Stock-Breeders (UNAG). CONAPRO, meanwhile, was replaced by the National Confederation of Professional Associations, Heroes and Martyrs (CONAPRO 'Heroes and Martyrs'), with one member. Both the latter and UNAG are listed under 'Occupational and Social Organisations', whereas UPANIC is listed with four other organisations under 'Private Enterprise Organisations'. According to several COSEP members, the FSLN has organised all the sectors, including the professional workers, and has politicised the organisations. The Government-backed organisations are allowed to engage in political activities, but not the others. They feel it a contradiction in terms that COSEP organisations should be represented on the Council of State but not be allowed to make political statements. Originally, the Council had 33 members, 11 of which were not pro-FSLN 'frentistas'. It now has 51 members, among which private enterprise organisations have only five representatives. They say that, in view of this manipulation, the 'non-frentistas' organisation decided not to attend meetings of the Council, though without relinquishing their right to occupy a seat on it. They further protest that the Programme of the National Reconstruction Government, which was drawn up after the overthrow of Somoza, has not been respected.

In talks with UNAG officials, I was told that the organisation represents the small and medium rural landowners who were not previously organised. UNAG embraces 130,000 families and its members are co-operatives and independent producers: 80,000 producers operate through co-operatives and 47,000 are independent. According to the officials, UNAG is not against the traditional organisations and would like to work alongside UPANIC. The organisation currently accounts for 90 per cent of food production, 34 per cent of coffee, 32 per cent of cotton and 73 per cent of stock-breeding. The officials deny that they are government-backed and point out that they had their own problems with the authorities, inter alia, over the restoration of confiscated property.

As far as professional workers are concerned, I obtained information from the two organisations referred to above. According to its President, CONAPRO originated as a clandestine organisation under Somoza; he personally was arrested for belonging to it and for supporting the FSLN. After the Revolution, CONAPRO was given a seat on the Council of State with a permanent and a deputy representative. It was CONAPRO which presented one of the first Bills to be brought before the Council, concerning compulsory membership of professional colleges and rules and regulations for professional workers. The Bill was rejected and CONAPRO was asked to prepare another draft. It was at this point that the FSLN began to hold a series of meetings at which the first attacks on the organisation occurred. The new draft was considered to be very good by the authorities, except for a few small changes which might be necessary. After it had been publicised by CONAPRO, the FSLN took it over and changed the text substantially. The leaders of the organisation accordingly convened an assembly to discuss the draft, which was held in February 1981. When the members of the Executive Committee entered the meeting room, a 'pro-government internationalist and professional mob began to shout political slogans' that had nothing to do with the agenda. In view of the reigning disorder, the then President of CONAPRO announced the suspension of the meeting and the Executive Committee withdrew. The other groups then took over the rostrum and began deciding who would be the members of the new executive committee of CONAPRO 'Heroes and Martyrs'. After these events the representatives of CONAPRO attended a meeting of the Council of State which, confronted by two organisatons, decided to recognise only CONAPRO 'Heroes and Martyrs'.

According to my information, the Bill was adopted. It provides for the creation of a National Board of Professional Workers, whose members belong to the FSLN; although, legally, CONAPRO is entitled to its own delegates they have never taken part in it. The Board is empowered to judge professional workers accused of infringing the law, and dozens have allegedly already been tried and sent to prison.

Finally, my interlocutors told me that CONAPRO consists of 12 occupational associations enjoying legal personality under the previous regime. According to CONAPRO, 'So far, not one of our associations has had its legal status recognised', whereas every day the newspapers report that it has been granted 'to associations and professions that have never existed in Nicaragua'.

In November 1982, CONAPRO 'Heroes and Martyrs' published a leaflet containing information on the origin of the organisation. According to this leaflet, after the fall of the previous regime CONAPRO ratified its membership of COSEP and accordingly came to have one representative on the Council of State. However, several professional sectors began to express their disagreement with this 'entrepreneurial' position of the organisation. At this point, a Bill to establish rules and regulations for the exercise of professional activities was drafted and began to be discussed in a Committee consisting of representatives of CONAPRO and other professional workers. When COSEP withdrew from the Council of State, CONAPRO stopped participating in the Committee's work and also ceased attending the Board. The Bill was drafted by an FSLN Committee, which is also 'holding a series of meetings with all professional workers, in which the text is gradually being finalised and unorganised sectors are being offered an opportunity to organise themselves'.

The leaflet goes on to say that new associations of professional workers were organised but that the leaders of CONAPRO prevented their affiliation to the oranisation. Given the circumstances, the leaders convened an assembly to condemn the Bill. During the assembly the participants opposed the Executive Committee, which left the premises. The assembly continued and a Provisional Executive Committee was elected and a number of decisions were adopted, including the withdrawal of CONAPRO from COSEP, the change of its name to CONAPRO 'Heroes and Martyrs' and the resumption of its participation in the Council of State. The assembly drew up a list of 16 sectors of professional workers. 'In this way, thanks to the opening up of participation to the rank and file of professional workers, the distinction between professional workers and the entrepreneurial sector was finally established. This is the principal difference between those who subsequently continued calling themselves CONAPRO (affiliated to COSEP) and CONAPRO 'Heroes and Martyrs'.

As far as this whole matter is concerned, the authorities pointed out to me that the fact that there are several organisations merely goes to prove that the Government respects the principle of pluralism. As to the representation of these organisations on the Council of State, the authorities claim that this is a political issue that has nothing to do with freeedom of association or the right to join trade unions.

&htab;231.&htab;The Committee notes the information obtained on this case by the mission.

&htab;232.&htab;With respect to the death of Jorge Salazar Argüello, Vice-President of COSEP, the Committee notes that, according to information contained in the mission report, the legal text in virtue of which a military court was dealing with this case is the Act concerning the organisation of miliary courts and provisional military penal proceedings, of which section 18 reads as follows: "the Military Courts shall be responsible for conducting penal proceedings in connection with any punishable act in which a number of the military personnel is implicated, even if one or more of the participants or the victims are civilians". The Committee notes that because of difficulties of co-ordinating times with the responsible official, the representative of the Director-General was unable to take the necessary steps to obtain the text of the judgement of the Military Court on the military personnel responsible for the death of the employer leader, Jorge Salazar Argüello, which was handed down some time ago. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not yet supplied the text of the judgement in question. It accordingly urges the Government to send the text of this judgement at an early date.

&htab;233.&htab;As regards the allegation concerning the arrests and prison sentences of employer leaders, the Committee had noted, in its 218th Report, that the Supreme Court of Justice had ordered the court of first instance to institute criminal proceedings against the persons in question for crimes against the security of the State and other crimes. In this respect, the Committee notes with interest that, according to information obtained by the representative of the Director-General during his meeting with the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, the public prosecutor did not present any criminal grounds for investigating the crime to which his attention had been drawn by the Court and no case was opened. The Committee also notes that all the persons involved are at liberty and, according to the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, the matter is therefore closed. The Committee would recall that the preventive detention of leaders of workers' and employers' organisations for activities connected with the exercise of their rights is contrary to the principles of freedom of association.

&htab;234.&htab;The allegation concerning the interference of the National Sandinista Liberation Front (FSLN) by promoting parallel pro-government organisations still needs to be examined; to be precise, these organisations are the Confederation of Professional Associations, Heroes and Martyrs - CONAPRO "HEROES AND MARTYRS" - and the National Union of Farmers and Stock-Breeders - UNAG; the former had allegedly taken away a seat in the Council of State from the (independent) Confederation of Professional Associations, which groups together most of the independent workers; the latter had been given two seats in the Council of State, despite the fact that the organisation which truly represents the agricultural and fishery sector is the Union of Agricultural and Fishery Producers.

&htab;235.&htab;With respect to this allegation, the authorities pointed out to the representative of the Director-General that the question of the representation of the various organisations on the Council of State is a political issue. The Committee was able to examine the text of the Fundamental Statute of the Republic and the Revised Fundamental Statute of 2 May 1981 (included amongst the documents appended to the report of the representative of the Director-General) of which sections 16, 17 and 18 lay down the composition of the Council of State. A comparison of the text of the Statute and its revised version of 2 May 1981 shows that the number of members of the Council of State (belonging to political, people's, trade union, co-operative and social organisations or private undertakings) increased from 23 to 51; furthermore, the (independent) Confederation of Professional Associations of Nicaragua (CONAPRO) was no longer represented by virtue of the reform and two additional members of the Council of State have taken its place: the National Confederation of Professional Associations, Heroes and Martyrs, and the National Union of Farmers and Stock-Breeders. According to sections 17 and 18 of the Statute, the Council of State is empowered to make legislative proposals to the Junta of the Government and to draw up a draft political constitution. Furthermore, section 9 of the Statute stipulates that the Junta of the Government, the Council of State and the law courts are State authorities. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the participation of workers' and employers' organisations in this Council should not infringe the principles of freedom of association, which implies the strict application of criteria on the basis of which the representativity of these organisations may be determined. Moreover, the participation of these organisations in the Council should not deprive other organisations of this right to defend the interests of their members.

&htab;238.&htab;The relevant section of the report of the Director-General's representative reads as follows:

&htab;The leaders of the CTN informed me that the ban on their leaving the country has now been lifted but that the physical attacks by the authorities on state-controlled banana estates and sugar plantations are continuing. They said that the Ministry of Labour should be able to supply information on the matters referred to in the complaints. &htab;The Ministry of Labour officials emphasised that the accusations should be more specific if they are to be answered. The complaints do not indicate who made the death threats, or who was actually threatened, or the date, place and circumstances in which the events supposedly took place. The allegations of physical attacks and denial of entry to work centres are equally vague, as they give no names, places or dates. Furthermore, the Government denies categorically that there is any ban on CTN leaders leaving the country and that in fact they enter and leave quite frequently. I personally was able to read in a Managua newspaper, during my visit, the statements made by the Secretary-General and Legal Adviser of the CTN at a press conference in the United States, which they were currently visiting.

&htab;I suggested that it might be useful for the Ministry of Labour to contact the Ministry responsible for agrarian reform to obtain further information and draw its attention to the allegations, inasmuch as they concern events in state-controlled banana estates and sugar plantations.

&htab;239.&htab;The Committee notes that, according to the report of the Director-General's representative, the leaders of the CTN state that the ban on their leaving the country has now been lifted. The Director-General's representative notes in his report that, during his mission, the Secretary-General and Legal Adviser of the CTN were on a visit to the United States. The Government, for its part, has denied that CTN leaders are forbidden to leave the country. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that this allegation does not call for further examination.

&htab;240.&htab;With regard to the allegations of physical attacks by the authorities on CTN members working on state-controlled banana estates and sugar plantations and of sugar workers affiliated to the CTN being prevented from entering their work centres, the Committee observes that, although the Director-General's representative has discussed the matter with the leaders of the CTN, they have not supplied any further information on the allegations but have merely indicated that the physical attacks are continuing.

&htab;241.&htab;The Committee further notes that the Director-General's representative suggested to the Ministry of Labour officials that it might be useful for the Ministry to contact the Ministry responsible for agrarian reform so as to obtain further information and draw its attention to the allegations. In these circumstances, and though the Committee is aware that, as the Government points out, the allegations do not contain all the relevant details, it requests the Government to follow up the suggestion made by the Director-General's representative. In addition, the Committee requests the complainant to transmit any further information it may have concerning this matter.

&htab;242.&htab;As to the alleged threats against the lives of trade union leaders by official militia, the Committee does not share the Government's view that the complainants have not given sufficient details. According to the allegations, the lives of Luis Mora, President of the Press Workers Union, and Salvador Sánchez were threatened by the official militia while they were in custody. It is further alleged that the police attempted to make Salvador Sánchez sign a statement against the CTN. The Committee therefore requests the Government to order an investigation of the allegations and to keep it informed of its findings.

&htab;259.&htab;The Government states in its communication dated 9 September 1983 that the reason for the latest arrest of Denis Maltes Lugo, Felipe Alonso and Alejandro Arnuero is the embezzlement of 43,000 córdobas from the funds of the union of which they were officials. The loss was discovered when an audit was carried out which the rank and file of the union requested from the Ministry of Labour. Their arrest is therefore not a breach of freedom of association but, rather, a measure taken to protect the union's assets and its members' right to question union leaders when they act against their interests.

&htab;260.&htab;With regard to the alleged use of coercion to make Denis Maltes Lugo relinquish his union post, the Government states that, if there was any such coercion, it was by members of the union themselves; when a person is elected to a trade union's executive body it is because its members trust him, and it is only to be expected, if he betrays their trust, that he should be rejected by his own electors. In fact, continues the Government, it so happened that, when an assembly was held to appoint new members of the executive body, Denis Maltes was not re-elected. In the Government's opinion the dispute is an internal union affair and reflects the members' freedom to elect their own officials. In other words, if there was coercion, no Government authority was in any way involved, as they do not interfere in internal union problems.

&htab;261.&htab;As to Zacarías Hernández' departure from the country because of "persecution and harassment by State security forces", the Government points out that, according to its migration services, Zacarías Hernández requested an exit visa which he was granted without any problem; this shows that he is not being persecuted in any way since, if he were, he would not have been granted the visa. The Government encloses a migration department certificate showing that the visa was granted on 18 August 1982.

&htab;262.&htab;Concerning Zacarías Hernández' latest communication of 28 March 1983, the Government states that it is full of calumnies against the Ministry of Labour and Government authorities that does not merit consideration.

&htab;263.&htab;As to the SEEOMC's serious accusations against Zacarías Hernández, the Government states that, as they relate to counter-revolutionary activities, they are outside the purview of the Committee on Freedom of Association and of the ILO. In any case, the Ministry of Labour cannot answer for accusations unconnected with union activities made by the organisation to which Zacarías Hernández belongs.

&htab;264.&htab;The section of the report of the Director-General's representative concerning this case reads as follows:

Allegations still pending

&htab;This case, which is based on a complaint presented by the Trade Union of Dockers, Employees and Office Staff of Corinto Docks (SEEOMC), was examined by the Committee in its 222nd report. A number of points that were still pending were summarised in paragraph 329: the precise grounds for the arrest of Denis Maltes Lugo, Felipe Alonso and Alejandro Arnuero, leaders of the SEEOMC; the use of coercion to make Denis Maltes Lugo relinquish his union post, the departure from the country of union leaders Zacarías Hernández and Isabel Somarriba, collusion between the authorities and management of the harbour enterprise to authorise the convening of an assembly of the SEEOMC, and the SEEOMC's accusations against Zacarías Hernández.

&htab;In a communication dated 9 September 1983, the Government replied on some of these points: the arrest of the three union leaders referred to; the departure from the country of Zacarías Hernández; and the use of coercion against Denis Maltes Lugo.

&htab;As regards the arrest of the three union leaders, I was able to ascertain that, owing to a mix-up, the information supplied by the Government refers to subsequent events. The matter of the embezzlement of over 40,000 córdobas arose sometime later, as will be seen below where I deal with a more recent allegation concerning the assemblies convened by the SEEOMC in 1983. In fact, the arrest of Denis Maltes Lugo, Alejandro Arnuero and Felipe Alonso in November and December 1982 was for disturbing the peace.

&htab;With regard to Isabel Somarriba, who had been an SEEOMC leader, I was told that her departure from the country was quite legal and that, if the State security forces had been looking for her, she would have been stopped at the border.

&htab;The Government denies the alleged collusion between the authorities and the management of the harbour enterprise to hold an assembly of the SEEOMC to appoint non-union members to an executive body sympathetic to the political interests of the Government. According to a report of the Ministry of Labour's Department of Trade Union Associations, an extraordinary general assembly was held on 18 December 1982, in accordance with article 29 of the Regulations governing trade unions associations, to appoint new members to the Union's executive board. At this assembly, the following were elected: President: Danilo Contreras; Secretary-General: Luis Acosta; Records Secretary: Julio Ayerdis; Disputes Secretary: José Gómez Novoa; Finance Secretary: Leonel Castillo Estrada; Organisation and Information Secretary: Julio Solís Samayoa; Medical Assistance Secretary: Paulino Lara Correa; Social Relations Secretary: René Zamora; President of the Supervisory Board: Jorge Gutiérrez Medrano; Secretary of the Board: Miguel Blandón; Accountant of the Board: Andrés Urbina. &htab;Countering the allegation, the Ministry of Labour officials made the following points: most of the members of the supposedly pro-Government executive committee were those who were subsequently cited in a complaint against the Government, following their arrest (see below); as to Danilo Contreras, who was elected President of this executive committee, he is mentioned in a letter from Zacarías Hernández himself as a victim of repression by the Ministry of Labour and the military authorities.

&htab;As to the SEEOMC's statement containing serious accusations against Zacarías Hernández, the Government maintains that it is not responsible for the remarks it contains and it therefore has nothing to say on the matter.

New allegations

Allegations with respect to the SEEOMC

&htab;These allegations are contained in a communication sent by Zacarías Hernández on 18 March 1983, to which the Government did not choose to reply in its letter dated 9 September 1983. Such information as I was able to obtain concerns mainly the allegation that Danilo Contreras, President of the SEEOMC, and René Argeñal, Treasurer of the Union's Supervisory Board, had to leave the country as they were being harassed by the labour and military authorities. According to the Government, Danilo Contreras left the country voluntarily after having cashed a cheque on 21 February 1983 for 12,720 córdobas made out by an undertaking to the order of the SEEOMC. The cheque should have been deposited in the Union's account as required by law, but, with the connivance of a bank employee, Danilo Contreras was able to cash it. As to René Argeñal, he left the country after taking 3,000 córdobas from the SEEOMC's petty cash. &htab;The Government denies the allegation that 120 SEEOMC members have been arrested and says that any complaint on the subject should at least indicate the names of the persons concerned so that a proper investigation can be made.

&htab;With regard to the allegation that the Union has been taken over by the military authorities, the Government refers back to the information supplied in connection with the events in Corinto surrounding the convening of assemblies by the SEEOMC.

Allegations concerning the events surrounding the convening of assemblies in Corinto by the SEEOMC

&htab;The complaint containing these allegations derives from an ICFTU communication dated 15 June 1983, a second dated 15 July 1983 enclosing a number of documents coming from its affiliate in Nicaragua, the Confederation of Trade Union Unity (CUS), a third dated 23 August 1983 with additional enclosures, and a communication from the World Confederation of Labour dated 22 August 1983 enclosing a report by Nicaragua's Standing Committee on Human Rights.

&htab;The complaint details the reasons that prevented the holding of an assembly convened by the SEEOMC on 21 May 1983 in the port of Corinto to decide the organisation's withdrawal from the Sandinista Central of Workers and its affiliation to the CUS. It also denounces the subsequent arrest of leaders and other SEEOMC members.

&htab;From my talks with the leaders of the CUS I was able to obtain further information about the events referred to. After the cancellation of the assembly for the reasons given in the complaint, a meeting was held at the Ministry of Labour at which an agreement was signed with representatives of non-union members calling for the convening of another assembly at which they would be able to participate and vote. According to them, the agreement was imposed on them by the Ministry authorities. The assembly was held on 1 June 1983 at the Corinto cinema, amid threats by plain-clothed policemen, members of the Sandinista Youth, members of the Sandinista Central of Workers, etc. Under the circumstances, the Union's executive committee and some of the workers left the meeting room for the SEEOMC's headquarters. Meanwhile, the assembly at the Corinto cinema continued and a new executive was elected, in the presence of a representative of the Ministry of Labour (the Chief of the Department of Trade Union Associations). Those who had withdrawn from the assembly held their own meeting and likewise elected an executive committee. Subsequently, a number of those elected were arrested, some of them for allegedly embezzling trade union funds. All those who were arrested have now been released, but the union leaders have not been reinstated in their jobs. &htab;The Ministry of Labour officials, including the Chief of the Department of Trade Union Associations at the time of the events, provided me with the following information on this complaint, based on documents held by the Department of Trade Union Associations and on their own observations. They stated that a series of events occurred in Corinto in February and March 1983 which led to a number of dockworkers making accusations against the leaders of the SEEOMC. first, union leaders Contreras and Argeñal had left with money belonging to the trade union; second, on 11 March 1983 the executive committee decided on its own account and without consulting the members to terminate the union's membership of the Sandinista Central of Workers. Around this time, according to the Ministry officials, a plot was uncovered in Corinto to blow up the port. Some 400 dockers occupied the SEEOMC's headquarters to demand an explanation for the disappearance of the union funds and for the executive committee's decision. The members of the executive decided to appeal to the Ministry of Labour, thanks to whose intervention an agreement was reached on 22 March.

&htab;Under this agreement, it was decided to hold an extraordinary general meeting on 26 March at the Nora theatre in Corinto, so that the workers could decide whether or not to terminate the organisation's membership of the CST and elect officials to the vacant seats on the executive committee. In addition, an audit was to be made of union funds.

&htab;On 24 March some 40 dockworkers wrote to the Ministry of Labour that they had attempted on several occasions to join the SEEOMC but that their request had been turned down by the executive committee without any explanation. They accordingly requested to be allowed to participate in the next assembly, with the right to speak and to vote.

&htab;The Ministry officials explained the situation of the dockworkers as regards union membership. Although trade union dues were deducted from the wages of all the workers, not all of them had membership cards. In fact there were four categories: (1) workers who were registered with the trade union and possessed a membership card; (2) those who were registered but did not have a card and therefore could not participate in union meetings; (3) those who were neither registered nor had a card; (4) occasional workers, who were likewise not union members.

&htab;In response to this communication, the Ministry of Labour approached the SEEOMC's executive committee, which said it agreed to the affiliation of the various dockers and to their participation in the forthcoming assembly. &htab;Meanwhile, the assembly was postponed to 21 May. Following an audit of the Union's fund, no justification could be found for expenditure amounting to 41,066.95 córdobas.

&htab;The events referred to in the complaint took place on 21 May. According to the former Chief of the Department of Trade Union Associations, there were neither police nor militia present at the meeting, though an army jeep was parked in the vicinity. I was informed that a CUS official had stated before the National Committee for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights that gangs from Chinandega, Chichigalpa, El Viejo and other areas were stationed in front of the meeting place, that nobody was wearing military uniform and that it was impossible to distinguish union members from those who were not. If the leaders of the CUS were unable to distinguish their own members from the others, I was asked, how could they possibly have known whether the people there were militiamen, as was claimed in the complaint?

&htab;What happened, I was told, was that 300 or so workers met in the Nora theatre and that the SEEOMC's executive committee refused to allow some 60 non-members who wished to participate to enter the meeting room. By doing so, I was told, the executive committee broke its promise to the Ministry. These workers were in front of one of the entrances to the theatre, while the CUS leaders were next to another entrance. The workers who had been refused entry, along with many of those already in the theatre, thereupon prevented the CUS leaders from entering and began to push them away. There was no other violence and no members of the police force were present. Finally, the CUS leaders decided to withdraw.

&htab;Two days later, on 23 May, a meeting was held at the Ministry of Labour which was attended by members of the SEEOMC's executive committee, representatives of the dissident workers and representatives of the Sandinista Central of Workers. It was decided at the meeting to hold a new assembly on 1 June at the Corinto cinema, in which workers who became members at that time would also participate. Moreover, in order to avoid any violence, it was agreed that the police would pass by the assembly hall fairly frequently. During the meeting there were mutual recriminations between the leaders of the CUS and of the CST but no violent threats since, I was told, the Ministry officials made sure that the discussion did not degenerate.

&htab;On 1 June the assembly was held at the Corinto cinema or theatre. During the assembly, so I was informed, the majority of the participants noisely manifested their opposition to the executive committee, which (except for a leader by the name of Urbina) decided to leave the meeting place and repair to the Union's headquarters, accompanied by 60 to 80 sympathisers. About 400 workers remained in the assembly hall and, in the presence of the Chief of the Department of Trade Union Associations, adopted a decision to maintain the union's affiliation to the CST and elected two persons to fill the vacant posts: Gilberto Siles (President) and Silvio Baldelomar (Secretary of the Supervisory Board). It was also decided to prefer a charge of embezzlement in connection with the irregularities that had come to light in the course of the audit of accounts. A record exists of the proceedings of this assembly which bears the signature of about 400 workers. According to the explanation I received, as it was the third time the assembly had been convened the number of members participating was sufficient to form a quorum (article 26 of the Regulations governing trade union associations). One-and-a-half months later the Ministry of Labour received a document informing it of the meeting held by the executive committee that had withdrawn from the meeting, along with its supporters, which stated that the two vacant posts had been filled by the election of Alejandro Arnuero Martínez (President) and Aníbal Corrales García. The document was signed by 95 workers. &htab;A few days after the 1 June assembly almost all the former members of the executive committee were arrested, along with Arnuero Martínez and Corrales García, on the charge of embezzlement of trade union funds. A number of members of the previous executive committee were likewise arrested since the financial irregularities covered the period of two executive committees. All these persons, to whom the complaint refers, have now been released and those whose whereabouts were unknown are back in circulation. Alejandro Arnuero Martínez, Jorge Gutiérrez Medrano and Máximo Leonel Castillo were released from prison on bail following a temporary stay of proceedings decided on 22 July 1983. They were, however, not reinstated in their jobs. The executive committee of the SEEOMC is currently functioning and consists of those who were already members of it prior to the 1 July 1983 assembly, plus Gilberto Siles and Silvio Baldelomar.

Allegations concerning the recognition of the legal personality of trade unions

&htab;In its communication of 23 August 1983, the ICFTU states that workers in undertakings in the sugar sector - "Faustino Martinez", "Refinería Nicaragüense del Azúcar" and "Nicaragua Sugar States Limited" - have for more than two years been requesting legal personality for their trade unions, without which they cannot operate. They went through the necessary formalities but the Ministry of Labour turned down their request. Although they have lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice, after many months the court has still not taken any decision. &htab;When discussing this matter with the leaders of the CUS, I was informed that the case had already been examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association at the time the request was turned down by the Ministry of Labour. Later, at the Ministry, I was given a copy of the decision handed down by the General Labour Inspectorate on 22 April 1982.

&htab;As the case is still before the Supreme Court of Justice, I asked the President of the Court what the situation was. The President, Argüello Hurtado, had the file brought to me and told me that the delay was not intentional but due to the Court's backlog of work. Almost all the members of the Court had examined the case and a draft decision had already been prepared. The final decision would be handed down in the course of the next few weeks, in December or January 1984.

&htab;As regards recognition of the legal personality of the trade unions, I heard complaints from a number of organisations which alleged that the delays in dealing with their requests were part of the dilatory tactics of the Ministry of Labour, though these were not employed when unions affiliated to the Sandinista Central of Workers were involved. I also received complaints from one organisation which is considered to be pro-Government. I passed the complaints on to the Ministry of Labour officials, who pointed out that the delays were caused by failure to meet all legal requirements. According to them, lists of members were often submitted that contained the same name several times over, with different signatures. These and other irregularities had to be put right and caused delays for which the Ministry was not responsible.

Allegations concerning the searching of trade union premises and harassment of the union members

&htab;The CUS communication dated 23 May 1983 which the ICFTU sent to the Office on 15 July 1983 claims that the SEEOMC problem is not an isolated case but part of the Government's repression of independent trade union organisations. By way of example, it refers to the searching of the premises of the Federation of Workers of Estelí (FTE), the searching of the premises of the Federation of Workers of Chinandega (FETRACHI) and the violence used against its leaders, the harassment of the members of the Federation of Rural Workers of Carazo by the so-called "mass organisations" of the Sandinista National Liberation Front, among others, the Sandinista Defence Committees (CDS), the militias and even the police.

&htab;From the Government I obtained information on only one of these allegations: the complaints were ascribed to the acute union rivalry that exists in Nicaragua and my attention was drawn to the vagueness of the description of certain events which made it impossible to conduct the necessary inquiries to be able to prepare a reply. With regard to the alleged searching of the premises of the Federation of Workers of Estelí, the Government said that this organisation was affiliated to the CUS and had acquired a house prior to the Revolution. After the Revolution the trade unions that belonged to the Federation joined the CST and continued meeting on the same premises. According to the Government there was no search; in fact, the CUS attempted to take over the house, which did not belong to it, and was prevented from doing so by those who were occupying it.

Allegations concerning the arrest of union members

&htab;In its communication of 22 August 1983, the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) sent a report of Nicaragua's Standing Committee on Human Rights listing the names of union leaders who had been arrested. The situation of some of these union members is under consideration by the Committee on Freedom of Association in connection with other cases concerning Nicaragua that are still pending.

&htab;According to my information, Daniel García Hernández and Allan Robles Reynosa, who are on the lists, have now been released. As mentioned earlier, the union members of the SEEOMC have also been released on bail. One of the lists, concerning arrests that took place in El Ocotal, Department of Nueva Segovia, mentions Miguel Salcedo, Victoriano Ramos, Nicolás González, Ramón González, Saturnino López Centeno, Heriberto Rodríguez, Santos Giménez, Bernabé Larios Morga, Santos Larios Cornejo, José Moreno Dávila, Mónico Fuentes, Abel López, José Moreno, Agustín Canales, Santos Guerrero and Santos Ponce Santacruz. According to a Ministry of the Exterior communication dated 1 September 1983 replying to a request for information about 17 members of the Central of Nicaraguan Workers (CTN) who were said to be under arrest, I was told that they had never been arrested and enjoyed complete freedom. During a visit to the CTN, I was handed a list of 30 officials and militants of the organisation, with details of their arrest, place of detention, charges against them, etc. A comparison of the two lists shows that Nicolás González, Saturnino López Centeno, Santos Larios Cornejo, Agustín Canales, Santos Ponce Santacruz, Victoriano Ramos and Mónico Fuentes are among those whom the CTN claims are still under arrest.

&htab;I pointed this out to the officials of the Ministry of Labour and Legal Adviser of the Ministry of the Interior, whom I visited to pass on the list supplied by the CTN and another list which I compiled from the names transmitted by the WCL, in which several of the names from the CTN list also appear. &htab;The Legal Adviser of the Ministry of the Interior assured me that nobody was detained for union activities or functions but only for counter-revolutionary activities. When I mentioned specific instances cited by some of the union leaders with whom I had spoken of trade unionists apparently being arrested without any reason or on grounds that did not constitute an offence, he said that there may perhaps have been certain abuses on occasion. I emphasised the importance of sending the ILO information on the specific grounds for arresting the persons on the lists and their present situation.

&htab;The day before leaving Managua I was handed a list by the authorities containing information on eight persons under arrest, three of whom appear on the CTN list. I was assured by the Ministry of Labour that further information on the persons under arrest would be sent directly to the ILO as soon as it was available.

&htab;294.&htab;In its communications of 2 March and 5 May 1983, the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) alleges the following infringements of Convention No. 87:

- harassment of rural leaders of organisations affiliated to the Central of Nicaraguan Workers (CTN), in Jalapa and in the rest of the country;

- break-up of the rural workers' union in Río Grande and Las Mojarras (Department of León) for being affiliated to the CTN; the CLAT also claims that the rural workers and their families are harassed, imprisoned and beaten and are accused of being counter-revolutionaries; - arrest without grounds of Francisco Rodríguez Sotelo and harassment of Domingo Ortiz, both members of the Urban Transport Union (SIMOTUR), with the intention of breaking up the trade union organisation in the transport sector and the CTN;

- threats on the life of Benito Gómez for acting as adviser on union affairs to the IMA cotton mill and the Union of Petrol Station Workers in the Department of Chinandega;

- use of shock troops by the military Government to attack and divide organisations such as the Union of Petrol Station Workers, and painting of slogans on the walls of the CTN premises and of the homes of CTN leaders by government shock troops (the CLAT enclosed photographic evidence obtained in May 1983).

&htab;295.&htab;In a communication dated 22 June 1983, the WCL alleges the following violations of freedom of association:

- persecution, harassment, interrogation and threats by State Security agents against Hermógenes Aguirre Largaespada, Disputes Secretary of the Union of Employees and Manual Workers of Andes e Induquinisa (STAI) affiliated to the CTN. According to the CTN this union leader was interrogated on ten occasions, during which he was questioned about the activities of CTN leaders and was pressed to become an informer for the State Security forces. Moreover, on 24 April 1983, a member of the Sandinista People's Army fired four shots at Hermógenes Aguirre's house after having insulted him and his family. The following day 20 people went to his house and to that of Larry Lee Shoures, President of the STAI, threatening to kill them and to set fire to their houses for being affiliated to the CTN and therefore counter-revolutionaries;

- dismissal on 26 January 1983 of five leaders of the Union of Workers of the Hacienda El Progreso under pressure from the police and the Sandinista Central of Workers (CST). They subsequently initiated legal proceedings and the the court concluded that there were no grounds for dismissal and ordered their reinstatement. Although their employer did not appeal against the court order and asked the union leaders to return to their jobs, the mass organisations (which have 18 visibly armed members at the Hacienda) threatened to kill them if they did so;

- confirmation of the dismissal of eight employees of the National Bus Company (ENABUS) by the Departmental Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour, after the court had ordered their reinstatement; they were allegedly dismissed for being members of SIMOTUR, which is affiliated to the CTN; - arrest of Abelino González Páiz on 2 February 1983 in El Pijao district, north of Matagalpa, simply for being a member of the CTN, evidence of this is that he is currently being held without trial and without charges being brought against him at the central command post of Matagalpa.

&htab;296.&htab;Referring to the dismissal of ENABUS employees, the Government states that in undertakings with a joint works committee, as at ENABUS, all dismissals must be examined by the committee to determine whether or not there are valid grounds. The ENABUS joint committee accordingly met on 18 January 1983 to examine the dismissals referred to in the complaint but failed to reach agreement. However, a collective agreement between the undertaking and its employees which stipulates that, if the joint committee fails to reach agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Ministry of Labour whose decision is final. The undertaking therefore wrote to the Departmental Labour Inspector on 19 January 1983 to request the cancellation of the contracts of eight workers on the grounds that they had refused to continue providing transport services on 24 and 31 December 1982. The workers were notified but, when summoned to state their case, did not do so. Meanwhile, on 21 January 1983, three days after the undertaking had submitted the case to the Ministry of Labour as required by the collective agreement, the workers initiated legal proceedings against the undertaking before the second labour court with a view to their reinstatement.

&htab;297.&htab;The Government adds that the Ministry of Labour continued to hear the case and invited the parties to submit evidence. Until then, the workers had entered a plea of res judicata and incompetence on the grounds that the Labour Court had heard the same case and had decided in their favour. The court of first instance considered that the fact that the undertaking had reinstated the workers signified acceptance of the claim by the defendant. The undertaking appealed against this ruling, but its appeal was rejected; it thereupon submitted the matter for consultation to the Higher Labour Tribunal, which confirmed the decision of the court of first instance as to the reinstatement of the workers but decided in favour of the undertaking to the extent that, juridically speaking, it had not accepted the claim and was therefore still entitled to establish its rights before the competent labour authorities. The Ministry of Labour consequently continued hearing the case and, by resolution of 12 April 1983, endorsed the cancellation of the workers' contracts. The workers thereupon appealed against the resolution and the case was brought before the General Labour Inspectorate which, by resolution dated 18 May 1983, ordered that the workers should be reinstated and that such wages as were due to them should be paid.

&htab;298.&htab;The Government concludes that at no moment did the Ministry of Labour act in a deceitful way towards the workers or go against any court decision; on the contrary, the decision handed down by the Higher Labour Tribunal recognised the competence of the Ministry of Labour to continue hearing the case.

&htab;299.&htab;The section of the report of the Director-General's representative which deals with this case reads as follows:

&htab;I received information and comments from the Government on most of the remaining allegations. As regards the arrest of Abelino González Páiz, his name appears on the lists passed on to the authorities with a request for information regarding the detainees cited. The various allegations and government replies are outlined below.

&htab;Harassment of rural leaders of organisations affiliated to the CTN, in Jalapa and in the rest of the country. The Ministry of Labour says that it has no record of any rural trade union affiliated to the CTN in the Jalapa area. However, it is common knowledge that the area is a military emergency area which, according to the authorities, is constantly being stirred up by counter-revolutionary elements.

&htab;Break-up of the rural workers' union in Río Grande and Las Mojarras (Department of Léon) for being affiliated to the CTN. The CLAT also claims that the rural workers and their families are harassed, imprisoned and beaten, and accused of being counter-revolutionaries. The Government points out that the complaint contains no explanation of how or by whom the trade union was broken up. The fact is that the Hacienda Río Grande, a property belonging to the Nicaragua Sugar Estates Limited, was sold and that the contracts of work were terminated. The workers filed a claim against the undertaking which the labour court ordered to pay appropriate compensation.

&htab;Arrest without grounds of Francisco Rodríguez Sotelo and harassment of Domingo Ortiz, both members of the Urban Transport Union (SIMOTUR), with the intention of breaking up the trade union organisation in the transport sector and the CTN. The Government explains that Francisco Rodríguez was held for two days for having removed public documents from a worker's file. His detention was therefore ordered in accordance with civil and penal law, and he was released after handing over the document. As to Domingo Ortiz, the Government denies categorically that he has been harassed. &htab;Threats on the life of Benito Gómez, for acting as adviser on union affairs to the INA cotton mill and to the Union of Petrol Station Workers in the Department of Chinandega. The Government states that, in the absence of more precise information regarding the place, date and substance of the threat, it is impossible to investigate the matter.

&htab;Use of shock troops by the military government to attack and divide organisations such as the Union of Petrol Station Workers. According to the Government, this is a libel as the split that occurred in the Union is merely a reflection of the split in the CTN. Both factions within the union claimed to represent the organisation and levelled accusations against each other until they eventually requested the mediation of the Ministry of Labour. At the extraordinary general assembly that was held to decide which of the two executive committees enjoyed majority support, the pro-CTN group led by Mr. Jarquín won the day.

&htab;Dismissal on 26 January 1983 of five leaders of the Union of Workers of the Hacienda El Progreso under pressure from the police and the Sandinista Central of Workers. Despite a court order to reinstate them, the mass organisations (which have 18 visibly armed members at the Hacienda) threatened to kill them if they returned. The Government says that the information provided by the complainants is too scanty for it to reply, as there is no indication where the Hacienda El Progreso is located and there are over a 100 plantations with the same name.

&htab;Painting of slogans on the walls of the CTN premises and of the homes of CTN leaders by Government-backed gangs. The Government says that it is alarmed that it should be blamed even for slogans painted by individuals or workers opposed to the CTN. The same tactics are used against other currents in the trade union movement but have not been denounced because the workers consider that they are part of inter-union rivalry. Acts of this kind escape the control of any government, as they are usually perpetrated clandestinely. As far as shock troops are concerned, the Government categorically denies maintaining any and insists that it does not get mixed up in inter-union conflict and rivalry."

&htab;300.&htab;The Committee notes with interest that, by resolution of 18 May 1983, the General Labour Inspectorate ordered the reinstatement of the eight trade unionists employed by ENABUS who, according to the complainants, were dismissed for being members of an organisation affiliated to the CTN.

&htab;301.&htab;With regard to the alleged harassment of rural leaders of organisations affiliated to the CTN in Jalapa, the Committee notes that, according to the Minisry of Labour, there is no record of any rural trade union affiliated to the CTN in the Jalapa area.

&htab;302.&htab;Concerning the arrest of Francisco Gómez Sotelo and harassment of Domingo Ortiz, both members of SIMOTUR, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the former was held for two days for having removed public documents from a worker's file and was released after handing over the documents and that the Government denies that the latter has been harassed.

&htab;303.&htab;As to the threats on the life of union adviser Benito Gómez, the Committee agrees with the Government that the allegations are insufficiently precise, particularly as they do not indicate the date, place, substance or origin of any such threat.

&htab;304.&htab;The Committee further notes that the Government considers slanderous the allegation that shock troops have been used by the military Government to attack and divide organisations such as the Union of Petrol Station Workers. The Committee observes that, according to the Government, there were two factions within the union but that an extraordinary general assembly was held to decide which of the two executive committees enjoyed majority support.

&htab;305.&htab;The Committee also notes that the Government considers that the alleged painting of slogans on the walls of the CTN premises and of the homes of CTN leaders by gangs is part of inter-union rivalry. The Government denies maintaining any such gangs and observes that slogans of this kind are usually painted clandestinely. On this point, the Committee considers that freedom of association implies the right of workers' and employers' organisations to resolve any difficulties by themselves and without interference by the authorities; the Committee also considers that it is for the Government to create an atmosphere conducive to the resolution of such difficulties.

&htab;306.&htab;The Committee takes note of the Government's comments to the Director-General's representative concerning the breaking up of the rural workers' union in Río Grande and Las Mojarras (Department of León) and the harassment, imprisonment and beating of the rural workers and their families on grounds of being counter-revolutionaries. In view of the Government's observation that the complaint contains no explanation of how or by whom the trade union is supposed to have been broken up, the Committee requests the complainants to send further details on the alleged incidents. In order to enable the Government to send its own observations, the Committee also requests the complainants to indicate exactly in which locality five leaders of the Union of Workers of the Hacienda El Progreso were dismissed on 26 January 1983 and prevented from returning to work despite a court order to reinstate them, as the Government says that it cannot reply to the allegation because there are over a hundred plantations with the name of "El Progreso".

&htab;307.&htab;Finally, the Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the allegations to which it has not replied, namely those concerning the union leader Hermógenes Aguirre Largaespada and trade unionist Larry Lee Shoures and the arrest of trade unionist Abelino González Páiz.

&htab;308.&htab;In its communication dated 9 May 1983, the Central of Nicaraguan Workers (CTN) alleges that two members of the national executive committee of the CTN, Germán Cabrera Ríos and his brother Gregorio, were arrested on 21 November 1982, since when no charge has been brought against them.

&htab;309.&htab;The CTN also alleges that on 2 March 1983 it learned of the arrest of Domingo Ríos Solano, a local peasant leader of the La Esperanza plantation (Nueva Guinea), and that Constantino Pettieng Vargas, a member of the national executive committee of the CTN, and Salomón Díaz Fernández, a local leader of the Yolaina plantation, were arrested on 17 April 1983.

&htab;310.&htab;In its communication dated 29 August 1983, the Government states that Germán and Gregorio Cabrera Ríos were arrested on suspicion of being implicated in the murder of Ahmed Campos but have since been released. The Government adds that, in any country in the world were someone has been murdered, the competent authorities are legally empowered to take any suspect into custody in order to carry out the necessary investigations - which is what occurred in this case. The arrest of the two brothers therefore has nothing to do with trade union activities.

&htab;311.&htab;The Government further states that Constantino Pettieng Vargas and Domingo Ríos Solano were released on 15 May and 19 July 1983, respectively.

&htab;313.&htab;The Committee notes that Germán Cabrera Ríos and his brother Gregorio and Constantino Pettieng Vargas, all members of the national executive committee of the CTN, as well as Domingo Ríos Solano, a local peasant leader of the La Esperanza plantation, have now been released.

&htab;314.&htab;The Committee also notes that, according to the Government, Germán and Gregorio Ríos were taken into custody on suspicion of being implicated in a murder. The Committee observes, nevertheless, that the Government has not indicated the circumstances that led the authorities to conclude that such suspicion existed and that, judging from the date they were taken into custody (21 November 1982) and the date of the CTN's complaint (9 May 1983), the brothers were in any case held for more than five-and-a-half months. In these circumstances, and since no charge was brought against Germán and Gregorio Cabrera Ríos, the Committee cannot but regret that these union leaders were held in custody for such a long period and draws the Government's attention to the fact that the preventive detention of union leaders involves a serious risk of interference in the activities of trade union organisations [See for example 214th Report, Case No. 1065 (Colombia), para. 417].

&htab;315.&htab;As to the arrest of Domingo Ríos and Constantino Pettieng Vargas, the Committee observes that the Government has not explained the reasons for their arrest and that, judging from the date on which the Government says they were released, the period during which they were held in custody was four-and-a-half months in the first case and almost a month in the second. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that it must reiterate the principles and considerations set out in the previous paragraph.

&htab;316.&htab;Finally, with respect to the arrest of Salomón Díaz Fernández, local leader of the Yolaina plantation, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, this union leader is being held for counter-revolutionary activities. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether Díaz Fernández is still in custody and to specify the precise charges against him.

&htab;318.&htab;The Committee has examined this case on two previous occasions, the most recent being at its November 1982 meeting when it presented interim conclusions to the Governing Body. [218th Report, paras. 506 to 555, approved by the Governing Body at its 221st Session (November 1982).] Since then, the Democratic Confederation of Labour (CDT) sent additional information on 2 November 1982, 30 April and 3 and 16 November 1983.

&htab;319.&htab;At its meetings in February and May 1983, the Committee requested the Government to consider accepting that a direct contacts mission be carried out to Morocco by a representative of the Director-General; and in June 1983, during the 69th Session of the International Labour Conference, the Chairman of the Committee, in accordance with the procedure, met with the Government delegates to the Conference to discuss this issue.

&htab;320.&htab;The Government sent additional observations on this case in communications dated 16 May and 27 October 1983 and, on 4 November 1983, transmitted its acceptance, in principle, of a direct contacts mission. [This latter information was noted by the Committee in paragraph 13 of its 230th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 224th Session (November 1983).] The Government supplied further information on 28 November 1983.

&htab;321.&htab;Morocco has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87); it has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;322.&htab;The original complaints related to the death and injuries suffered by several hundred persons during demonstrations surrounding the 24-hour general strike called by the CDT on 20 June 1981; the arrest of trade unionists - in particular of four national trade union leaders who had been in custody without trial for over a year at the time of the last examination of the case; the closure of the CDT premises; and dismissals in various sectors after the strike. New allegations were brought concerning the prohibition of the CDT's May Day 1982 celebrations and the sentencing of a CDT leader to one year's imprisonment for distributing a press release on the trade union situation. The Government's replies on the substance of the case dealt with the dismissals, the closure of trade union premises and the imprisonment of a CDT leader for violating the dissemination of information laws.

&htab;323.&htab;At its November 1982 meeting, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to approve the following interim conclusions:

&htab;(a) In view of the time which has elapsed since the first proposal of direct contacts addressed to the Government (August 1981), the Committee deeply deplores the failure of the Government to agree to an on-the-spot mission by a representative of the Director-General to examine the question at issue. The Committee is convinced that such a mission could contribute to a better knowledge of the trade union situation and to a useful examination of possible solutions to the problems at issue. The Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Director-General to approach the government authorities once again in order that such a mission may take place in the near future.

&htab;(b) As regards the allegations concerning the death of numerous persons during demonstrations, the Committee deplores that the Government has not supplied the additional observations which had been requested on this aspect of the case, it would again urge the Government to state whether a judicial inquiry has been held on the circumstances of these deaths, and if so, to inform it of the outcome of this inquiry. &htab;(c) As regards the arrest of the trade unionists mentioned by the complainants and, in particular, the four national leaders of the CDT who have been in custody awaiting trial for over a year for having called for a strike, and who, according to the complaints, face sentences of 5 to 20 years' imprisonment, the Committee again requests the Government to supply detailed information on their present situation and on the situation of all the detainees mentioned in the Annex to the 214th Report of the Committee.

&htab;(d) As regards the allegations concerning the dismissal of trade unionists following the strike of June 1981, the Committee invites the Government to re-examine the situation of workers dismissed for striking with a view to restoring a better climate of industrial relations.

&htab;(e) As regards the alleged closure of trade union premises of the CDT, the Committee, noting the assurances given by the Government that the authorities have not closed trade union premises, expresses the firm hope that the CDT will now be able to continue to carry out its activities without hindrance throughout the country.

&htab;(f) As regards the sentence of one year's imprisonment imposed on the national leader of the CDT, Mr. Bouzabaa, for distributing a press release during a meeting organised without previous authorisation, thereby, according to the Government, infringing the "Law on Public Freedoms", the Committee insists on the importance of the right to express opinions through the press as an essential means of exercising trade union rights. Accordingly, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will adopt an attitude of clemency with regard to this trade union leader; it requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken in this respect.

&htab;(g) Finally, the Committee requests the Government to communicate its observations on the allegation, to which it has not replied, concerning the prohibition imposed on the CDT to celebrate May Day 1982.

&htab;324.&htab;In a communication dated 2 November 1982, the CDT alleges that the Government's campaign of repression continues against it: its four leaders remain detained without trial, those CDT members and leaders who have served their sentences related to the June 1981 strike have not been reinstated in their jobs and four trade union headquarters (at Meknès, Nador, Benguerir and Kelaa-Sraghna) remain closed by the authorities.

&htab;325.&htab;On 30 April 1983, the CDT informed the ILO that the authorities had arbitrarily prohibited its 1983 May Day celebrations whereas it was allowing other workers' organisations to celebrate May Day.

&htab;326.&htab;The CDT, in its communication dated 3 November 1983, states that on 5 May 1983 all the detained CDT executive members were released by virtue of a Royal Amnesty, except its Secretary-General who remains detained without trial. In addition, it states that two trade union premises remained closed under the 1981 orders (Bengrir and Kalaat-Sraghna) and that it was refused permission to attend the Sixth ILO African Regional Conference held in Tunis in October 1983. Lastly, the complainant points out that in 1983 trade union elections were held in all sectors, the results of which were favourable to the CDT, but the Government and the employers still refused any dialogue with that union despite several approaches to the authorities to this end.

&htab;327.&htab;On 16 November 1983, the CDT informed the ILO that although the Government had invited it to participate in an ILO safety and health seminar to be held in Rabat from 16 to 29 November, the employers of the CDT representatives chosen refused to allow them to take part in the seminar.

&htab;328.&htab;On 16 May 1983, the Government forwarded certain explanations concerning the prohibition of 1 May 1982 celebrations, namely that the splits between extremist and moderate CDT leaders had led to disorder in the organisation's ranks which could have led to public disturbances if May Day marches had been permitted.

&htab;329.&htab;In its further communication of 27 October 1983, the Government explains that the decision of the local authorities to prohibit the CDT from organising May Day marches in 1983 was not discriminatory since the Moroccan laws concerning trade union activities apply to all Moroccan trade unions without distinction whatsoever. It claims that the decision was taken with a view to maintaining public order, since the splits referred to above could have led to public disturbances. According to the Government, only May Day marches were prohibited, which left the CDT free to hold other celebrations in its headquarters or in the Casablanca Sports Stadium; it was the CDT itself which decided to cancel all activities planned for this occasion.

&htab;330.&htab;On 28 November 1983, the Government informed the ILO that the Secretary-General of the CDT, as well as all remaining CDT members referred to in this case, were released by virtue of a Royal pardon in November 1983. This decision was taken, states the Government, with a view to reinforcing social peace and to allowing all Moroccan citizens to take part in the legislative elections which will probably take place in the country in early 1984. The Government considers that, since the proposed visit of the representative of the Director-General to the country would coincide with the elections, and in view of the new political situation in the country, it would be appropriate if the Committee were to reconsider its position in this case.

&htab;337.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this interim report, and in particular the following conclusions:

(a) The Committee notes that all the trade union leaders referred to in the complaints have been released and that the country is preparing for legislative elections in early 1984 with, according to the Government, the full participation of trade unionists; the Committee requests the Government to confirm whether all the trade unionists who have been released have been able to resume their trade union activities.

(b) The Committee once again notes with profound regret that the Government has supplied no further information on the alleged death of numerous persons during the demonstrations that took place on the occasion of the 20 June 1981 general strike. The Committee would again urge the Government to state whether a judicial inquiry was held into the circumstances of these deaths and, if so, to inform it of the outcome of this inquiry.

(c) The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the CDT marches on the public thoroughfare to celebrate May Day in 1982 and 1983, could have involved a risk of public disturbances; in this connection the Committee would recall that the right to organise public meetings and processions, particularly on the occasion of May Day, constitutes an important aspect of trade union rights.

(d) As regards the allegations that two trade union headquarters remain closed under the 1981 orders, the Committee recalls that the right to protection of trade union property is one of those civil liberties which are essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights; it requests the Government to take the necessary measures for the reopening of these premises and to keep it informed of developments in this regard.

(e) As regards the trade unionists who participated in the 1981 strike, and who are still refused reinstatement in their jobs, the Committee recalls that when trade unionists and trade union leaders are dismissed for striking, there is reason to conclude that they have been penalised for their legitimate exercise of trade union activities and that they are subject to anti-union discrimination contrary to the principles of freedom of association; the Committee requests the Government to inform it of any measures that may be taken towards their reinstatement. (f) As regards the most recent allegations concerning the refusal to allow the CDT to attend two ILO-organised events, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.

&htab;338.&htab;The Committee has examined this case on three previous occasions, the most recent being at its meeting in February 1983 when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. [See 222nd Report, paras. 219 to 244, approved by the Governing Body at its 222nd Session (March 1983).]

&htab;339.&htab;At its meeting in May 1983 the Committee requested the Government to transmit at an early date detailed observations on further allegations that had been presented by the complainants in a communication of 28 April 1983 and which were, in turn, communicated to the Government on 4 May 1983 (see 226th Report, para. 9). The Government sent certain further observations in a communication received on 17 May 1983. In a further communication dated 28 October 1983 the Government, referring to its previous communications concerning the case, stated that the complainants, in their most recent allegations, repeated information that was being circulated years ago and which, according to the Government, was without any basis in fact. The Government added that it considered that it had already supplied sufficient information on the basis of which the case could be closed. At its November 1983 meeting the Committee took note of these statements and decided to examine this case in substance at its February 1984 meeting (see 230th Report, para. 14).

&htab;340.&htab;Romania 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).

&htab;382.&htab;The Committee examined these cases at its sessions in November 1982 and May 1983, submitting on both occasions an interim report to the Governing Body.[See 218th Report, paras. 631 to 654 and 226th Report, paras. 141 to 153, approved by the Governing Body at its 221st and 223rd Sessions in November 1982 and May-June 1983 respectively.] Subsequently, the Government sent additional information in communications dated 2 June and 5, 7 and 11 September 1983.

&htab;383.&htab;Uruguay 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).

&htab;385.&htab;The Government states that on 31 March 1983, the Military Supreme Court granted Alberto Altesor's early release, basically on the grounds of his state of health.

&htab;386.&htab;The Government also states that the inquiries carried out by the Ministry of the Interior, upon the Committee's request, to ascertain the whereabouts of Pedro Ortiz, had given the following results: Pedro Ortiz had not been, neither was he in detention; on 13 February 1982, a foreign radio station gave the false information that Mr. Ortiz had been detained in Uruguay; even although Mr. Ortiz is not on any list of passengers who entered or left the country since 1 January 1982, the possibility that he might have left the country cannot be ruled out especially as, in view of the long-standing and cordial relations that Uruguay has with its neighbouring countries, controls on persons entering or leaving the country are flexible.

&htab;387.&htab;Concerning the list of detained, tried and sentenced persons, contained in an annex to the Committee's 226th Report, the Government states that Jorge Luis Bessio, Neber Corral and Raúl López have been unconditionally released. With respect to the other 34 persons mentioned in this list and the Committee's request that an explanation should be given as to the facts which gave rise to their trial, sentencing or detention, the Government points out that it has already provided full information on 33 of these persons and refers the Committee to its previous replies; with respect to the remaining person (Rubén Bello García), the Government states that he was arrested on 25 March 1979 and sentenced in the Court of Second Instance, on 4 June 1981, to ten years' imprisonment, without right of appeal, for offences committed under Section 60(V) of the Military Penal Code ("Subversive associations") and under Section 60 (I) (6) in conjunction with Section 60 (XII) of the Military Penal Code ("Conspiracy against the Constitution followed by preparatory acts"). His sentence will terminate on 25 March 1989.

&htab;388.&htab;The Committee notes with interest that, in accordance with its request, the Military Supreme Court granted the early release of the trade unionist Alberto Altesor, in view of his state of health. The Committee also notes the outcome of the inquiries carried out to ascertain the whereabouts of the dockworker trade unionist Pedro Ortiz. The Committee further notes that the trade unionists Jorge Luis Bessio, Neber Corral and Raúl López have been unconditionally released.

&htab;389.&htab;The Committee notes that, in connection with its request to the Government to explain the facts which gave rise to the trial, sentencing and detention of the other 34 persons, the Government states that it has already provided full information in its present or former replies. In this respect, the Committee must point out that the Government merely listed the types of offences which the persons in question had allegedly committed. Most of the offences listed relate to "subversive association", "conspiracy against the Constitution" and other criminal actions, and there is no way of ascertaining if the detention, trial or sentencing of those concerned was linked to the exercise of trade union activities; the Committee therefore requests the Government once again to state the concrete facts leading to their arrest and to indicate whether they are still detained.

&htab;390.&htab;Finally, the Committee recalls that it requested the Government to take measures to secure the release of ten trade union leaders and trade unionists (Alberto Casas Rodríguez, Daniel Uriarte Pintos, Gene Mateos Calvete, Nelson Cuello Camejo, Ramón Freire Pizzano, Armando Coronel Báez, Humberto Bonelli, Belvecio Bonelli Arias, Alberto Urruty Pizarro and Elbio Quintero Bethancourt) and to inform it of any action taken in this respect. As the Government has not submitted any information on this matter, the Committee can only reiterate its request.

&htab;391.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this interim report, and in particular the following conclusions:

(a) The Committee notes with interest that, in accordance with its request, the Military Supreme Court has granted the early release of the trade unionist Alberto Altesor, in view of his state of health. The Committee also notes the outcome of the inquiries carried out by the authorities to ascertain the whereabouts of the dockworker trade unionist Pedro Ortiz. The Committee further notes that the trade unionists Jorge Luis Bessio, Neber Corral and Raúl López have been unconditionally released.

(b) Although the Committee notes that the Government has stated the types of offences allegedly committed by the 34 trade unionists mentioned in the attached list, it requests the Government to indicate the concrete facts leading to their arrest so that it might ascertain if their detention, trial or sentencing was linked to the exercise of trade union activities. The Committee asks the Government to supply information on the situation of these persons, in particular whether they are detained.

(c) The Committee requests the Government once again to take measures to secure the release of the trade union leaders and trade unionists Alberto Casas Rodríguez, Daniel Uriarte Pintos, Gene Mateos Calvete, Nelson Cuello Camejo, Ramón Freire Pizzano, Armando Coronel Báez, Humberto Bonelli, Helvecio Bonelli Arias, Alberto Urruty Pizarro and Elbio Quinteros Bethancourt and to inform it of any action taken in this respect.