Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 52, 1961

Cas no 168 (Paraguay) - Date de la plainte: 10-AOÛT -57 - Clos

1. 55. The complaint of the Confederation of Latin American Workers is contained in a communication dated 10 August 1957. The Government presented observations on the complaint in a communication dated 1 June 1960.
2. 56. When it examined the case at its meeting on 8 November 1960, the Committee submitted its final conclusions to the Governing Body with respect to certain allegations relating to the detention of workers and trade union officers, and these were approved by the Governing Body at its 147th Session (15-18 November 1960). The Committee presented an interim report on the remaining allegations-those relating to a police attack on an assembly of workers, to the detention of Mr. Insfrán, General Secretary of the Grau Union, and to denial of trade union rights-in respect of which it decided to request the Government to furnish further information. Further information was forwarded by the Government in a letter addressed to the Director-General of the I.L.O on 24 January 1961. The Committee, therefore, is now in a position to continue its examination of these outstanding allegations.
3. 57. Paraguay has not ratified either 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).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to a Police Attack on an Assembly of Workers
  58. 58 It is alleged that, on 1 May 1955, workers were peacefully assembled at the Pantheon of Heroes in memory of their victimised comrades, when they were fired on by the police, some being killed or injured, while others were imprisoned or persecuted.
  59. 59 The only specific reference to this allegation made in the Government's reply dated 1 June 1960 was a statement to the effect that the accusation was false.
  60. 60 At its meeting on 8 November 1960 the Committee recalled that it has pointed out in the past that, when precise allegations are made, it cannot regard as satisfactory replies from governments which are confined to generalisations, and that where the information given in a government's reply appears to be inadequate or of too general a character it will request the government concerned to supply it with more detailed information in order to enable it to express a considered view to the Governing Body. In the present case the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish more detailed information concerning the incidents alleged to have taken place at the Pantheon of Heroes on 1 May 1955.
  61. 61 In its letter dated 24 January 1961 the Government states categorically that, on 1 May 1955, Labour Day was celebrated as usual by the Paraguayan Confederation of Trade Unions, that no incident whatsoever took place, that no workers were maltreated at the Pantheon of Heroes and that the Government did not find it necessary to take any juridical measures for the purpose of maintaining public order.
  62. 62 The Committee has before it two concise but conflicting statements with respect to the celebration of Labour Day, 1955, in Paraguay. It is to be observed, however, that, while the Government denies that any untoward incident whatsoever occurred, the complainants, while stating that workers were fired on, some being killed or injured and others imprisoned or persecuted, do not give the name of a single worker involved in these serious alleged incidents and do not make any allegation as to the trade union status or affiliation of any person concerned.
  63. 63 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the complainants have not furnished evidence to show that any infringement of trade union rights occurred.
• Allegations relating to the Detention of Mr. Insfrán, General Secretary of the Grau Union
  64. 64 It is alleged that, a few months before the presentation of the complaint in August 1957, Mr. Insfrán, General Secretary of the Grau Union, was kidnapped at his home and placed in the dungeons of the Chaco concentration camp, because of his activities in defence of democratic freedom and trade union rights.
  65. 65 With respect to the Government's argument in its letter dated 1 June 1960 that where measures had been taken against persons, including trade unionists, for seditious or rebellious activities, this had been pursuant to the exercise of sovereign powers by the Government for which no international organisation has the right to censure it, the Committee, at its meeting on 8 November 1960, observed that the Governing Body has, in a number of earlier cases, on the recommendation of the Committee, rejected such arguments, stating the question whether the formulation of charges of having committed crimes on the basis of facts and allegations involving the exercise of trade union rights is to be regarded as a matter relating to a criminal offence or a matter related to the exercise of trade union rights is not one which can be determined unilaterally by the government concerned, in such a manner as to prevent the Governing Body from inquiring further into it. In the present case, therefore, the Committee considered that it was competent to examine the case of Mr. Insfrán on its merits.
  66. 66 The Committee recalled that, in a number of earlier cases, it has emphasised the importance which it has always attached to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which the government considers have no relation to their trade union functions. In the past, moreover, where allegations that trade union leaders or workers have been arrested for trade union activities have been met by governments with statements that the arrests were made for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security or for common law crimes, the Committee has followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to submit further and as precise information as possible concerning the arrests, particularly in connection with the legal or judicial proceedings instituted as a result thereof and the result of such proceedings. The Committee, therefore, recommended the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the importance which it attaches to the principle of prompt and fair trial set forth above and to request the Government to be good enough to inform the Governing Body whether Mr. Insfrán, General Secretary of the Grau Union, was in prison or in confinement and to furnish information as to the legal or judicial proceedings taken in his case and as to the result of these proceedings.
  67. 67 In its communication dated 24 January 1961 the Government declares that Mr. Insfrán was arrested over 18 months ago, when he was distributing Communist-inspired pamphlets, but that he was liberated after one month and went, of his own free will, to Montevideo and Buenos Aires and then to Cuba.
  68. 68 In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
      • (a) to draw the attention of the Government once again to the importance which the Governing Body has always attached to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which the Government considers have no relation to their trade union functions;
      • (b) to decide, in view of the Government's statement that Mr. Insfrán was liberated after one month and then left the country of his own free will, that, subject to the observation made in subparagraph (a) above, no useful purpose would be served by pursuing further its examination of this aspect of the case.
  69. Allegations relating to Denial of Trade Union Rights
  69. 69 It is alleged that an unjustifiable state of siege exists in the country, that enjoyment of civil liberties, of the right to associate and of the right to strike are impossible, and that workers cannot improve their conditions because they are not permitted to form a free and independent trade union organisation; only a single trade union centre, patronised by the Government, is recognised. Hence, declare the complainants, the workers of Paraguay call for an end to the state of siege, the right to associate and to strike and a minimum wage of 156.52 guaranis.
  70. 70 In its reply dated 1 June 1960 the Government declared that at no time has it refused to recognise the trade union rights of the workers or made use of the state of siege to persecute them. During the period 1948-60, contended the Government, laws have been passed which protect the right of the workers to belong to trade union organisations; there are laws which govern both the right of association and the right to strike. The Government denied that there is any " state trade union centre " and stated that hundreds of trade unions exist which freely elect their officers and that their delegates set up the Paraguayan Confederation of Trade Unions. In order to call strikes in Paraguay, the requirements of the law must be observed; conciliation boards exist. Matters affecting the workers are dealt with by the national Department of Labour. Complaints of the workers have always received attention, added the Government, but strikes on occupational grounds have been called on many occasions. In conclusion the Government declared that the wage for an eight-hour day is 161 guaranis-more than the demand put forward in the complaint.
  71. 71 At its meeting on 8 November 1960 the Committee observed that one of the essential points put forward by the Government was that in the period 1948-60 laws were passed protecting the right to organise in trade unions and concerning the right to strike. No further details as to these laws were given. Paraguay resumed membership of the I.L.O in 1956, but did not forward any reports under article 19 of the Constitution of the I.L.O on the application of 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), for the period ending 31 December 1957, as requested by the Governing Body.
  72. 72 In these circumstances the Governing Body, on the recommendation of the Committee, requested the Government to be good enough to furnish texts of the legislation to which reference was made in its reply.
  73. 73 In its communication dated 24 January 1961 the Government declares that freedom of association is defined in Paraguay by the provisions of articles 19 and 32 of the Constitution of Paraguay, a copy of which the Government has forwarded to the Office, and that the protection of workers' and employers' organisations is ensured by Legislative Decree No. 3080 of 18 December 1937. The Government states that it also enclosed with its reply a copy of the Review of the Labour Department containing the text of the said Legislative Decree. This latter document, however, has not been received by the Office.
  74. 74 The legal position relative to the allegations now before the Committee is not at all clear. Article 19 of the Constitution affirms the right of association for lawful purposes in conformity with the legislation regulating the exercise of this right. Article 32, also referred to by the Government, provides that the State shall regulate the organisation, functioning and activities of political entities.
  75. 75 On 12 March 1931 the Government of Paraguay issued Decree No. 39361 respecting the right of assembly and association. On 20 February 1945 the Government issued Decree No. 7347 declaring workers' organisations to be in a state of reorganisation. In its letter dated 24 January 1961 the Government states that the protection of workers' organisations is ensured by Legislative Decree No. 3080 of 18 December 1937, a copy of which the Government stated to be enclosed with its letter but which has not been received; the Office has not succeeded in obtaining a copy of this text. Finally, in its letter dated I June 1960, the Government states that during the period 1948-60 laws were passed which protect the right of workers to belong to trade unions, while other laws govern both the right of association and the right to strike, but, in reply to the Governing Body's request for information, the Government gives no details of the said post-war legislation.
  76. 76 The Committee, therefore, considers that, before it makes its recommendations to the Governing Body on this aspect of the case, it should have before it information from the Government as to whether Decree No. 39361 of 12 March 1931 respecting the right of assembly and association is still in force, as to how far Legislative Decree No. 3080 of 18 December 1937 has been affected by Decree No. 7347 of 20 February 1945 declaring workers' organisations to be in a state of reorganisation, and as to whether the last-mentioned decree is still in force. The Committee also wishes to be furnished with the text of Legislative Decree No. 3080 of 18 December 1937 and with information, including copies of the relevant texts, of the legislation referred to in the Government's letter of 1 June 1960 as having been enacted between 1948 and 1960 to protect the right of workers to belong to trade union organisations and of the other laws governing the right of association and the right to strike also referred to in the Government's letter of 1 June 1960.
  77. 77 The Committee accordingly recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to furnish the information and copies of legislative texts referred to in paragraph 76 above.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 78. As regards the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to decide, with respect to the allegations relating to a police attack on an assembly of workers, that the complainants have not furnished evidence to show that, in this instance, any infringement of trade union rights occurred;
   • (b) to decide, with respect to the allegations relating to the detention of Mr. Insfrán, General Secretary of the Grau Union:
   • (i) to draw the attention of the Government once again to the importance which the Governing Body has always attached to the principle of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which the Government considers have no relation to their trade union functions;
   • (ii) that, in view of the Government's statement that Mr. Insfrán was liberated after one month and then left the country of his own free will, and subject to the observation made in subparagraph (i) above, no useful purpose would be served by pursuing further its examination of this aspect of the case;
   • (c) to decide, with respect to the allegations relating to denial of trade union rights, to request the Government to be good enough to furnish the information and copies of legislative texts referred to in paragraph 76 above.