Definitive Report - Report No 142, 1974

Case No 694 (Honduras) - Complaint date: 12-MAR-72 - Closed

1. 41. When this case came before it at its meeting in November 1972, the Committee decided to postpone consideration of it and asked the Director-General to secure additional information from both the complainants and the Government.
2. 42. The complaint was made in a letter dated 21 March 1972 from the world Confederation of Labour to the Director-General. In two other communications, one dated 4 November 1972 and the other 3 March 1973, the World Confederation of Labour provided further information in support of the complaint.
3. 43. In two letters, one dated 12 May 1972 and the other 27 December 1973, the Government transmitted its comments.
4. 44. Honduras has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 45. In its letter dated 21 March 1972, the World Confederation of Labour alleged that on 18 February 1972 five peasants were killed when the Special Security Force opened fire on them as they were peacefully tilling the land belonging to the Peasants' League of Talanquera, in the township of Juticalpa (Department of Olancho). Five others were seriously wounded. According to the complainants, the order to open fire had been given by the head of the local Special Security Force, under pressure from the landowners.
2. 46. In its communication dated 12 May 1972, the Government did not deny that peasants had lost their lives in the shooting - in fact, six peasants and one soldier had been killed in the clash. This had taken place after the Special Security Force and Army units had begun to clear the peasants squatting on an estate, in accordance with orders given by the Head of the Juticalpa Regional Office of the National Agrarian Institute (INA).
3. 47. The Government also quoted the conclusions reached by a special Committee of inquiry, made up of a representative of the National Agrarian Institute, the Chairman of the National Peasants' Association of Honduras (ANACH), a representative of the armed forces, and two representatives of the Legislature, belonging to the Liberal Party and National Party respectively. The events of Juticalpa had taken place in an atmosphere of confusion, due to conflicts concerning rights of ownership and pre-emption with regard to land and aggravated by the slowness shown by the courts in settling the dispute.
4. 48. In its answer, the Government added that the events in question were caused by an unfortunate combination of circumstances which it could have done nothing to prevent. Nevertheless, the courts were continuing their inquiries with a view to determining criminal liability.
5. 49. At its meeting in November 1972, the Committee asked the Director-General to request the complainants and the Government to indicate the nature of the organisation known as the Peasants' League of Talanquera and state whether it was a trade union organisation and whether the disputed title of ownership belonged to the League or to the peasants individually or collectively.
6. 50. In its letter dated 3 March 1973, the World Confederation of Labour said that it was the favourable attitude of the head of the INA Regional office which had led the peasants to take possession of the land in question. There was a dispute between the peasants and two co-proprietors of adjacent lands, who claimed to have a right to these plots, which had previously been occupied by Salvadorian peasants. The problem was to decide whether the land in question was public land, as the peasants claimed, or part of the adjacent holdings, as the two landowners claimed.
7. 51. The latter, added the World Confederation of Labour, then called in the Special Security Force to evict the peasants. The peasants refused to leave, arguing that the parties had agreed to meet that same day (18 February 1972) to reach an understanding. Army units then joined in and shooting broke out, as a result of which seven persons were killed.
8. 52. The World Confederation of Labour added that two legal cases were under way, one brought by the families of the deceased peasants against one of the two co-proprietors for murder, and the other brought by the Departmental Officer of the Special Security Force against certain peasants for disrespect of authority.
9. 53. In its communication dated 27 December 1973, the Government declared that the organisation known as the Peasants' League of Talanquera was not registered as a trade union with the Ministry of Labour, and hence the Government was unable to say what its standing was in the eyes of the law. It appended to its communication a report on the matter by the Supreme Court of Justice.
10. 54. In the letter accompanying its report, the Supreme Court stated that nothing in the written or oral evidence established a relation between what happened at La Talanquera and the exercise of freedom of association in Honduras. In its report, the Court confirmed the account given by the complainants.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 55. The case now before the Committee is a very grave one, but the Committee has first to consider whether it involves a breach of freedom of association that can be examined under the procedure in force.
2. 56. As regards the organisation called the Peasants' League of Talanquera, to which the peasants in the case belonged, the Government declares that it is not registered as a trade union and its standing in the eyes of the law is unknown. The Committee has always taken the view that in deciding whether or not any given organisation is occupational in character it is not bound by any national definition of what constitutes an occupational organisation, and that for example, failure by an organisation to file its rules in accordance with national legislation would be no adequate reason for declaring a complaint irreceivable, since the principle of freedom of association demands that workers should not have to obtain prior authorisation before setting up organisations of their choice to promote and defend their interests. However, even if this particular league is considered to be a peasants' occupational organisation, it still remains to be decided whether the events complained of had anything to do with trade union activities. In this respect, the Committee observes that in the light of the information available, the peasants in question seem to have occupied land to which they claimed a right, that this land was at that time the object of legal proceedings, and that the peasants had been ordered to leave. They refused, whereupon a dispute arose that ended in violent repression by the police and army units.
3. 57. While the Committee fully recognises that these events were extremely serious, especially bearing in mind that the land in question had been occupied by the peasants with the approval of the local INA representative, it considers that the issue was not the exercise of trade union rights but rather a question of land ownership and tenure governed by specific national legislation having nothing to do with the problems of freedom of association.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 58. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case calls for no further examination on its part.