Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 111, 1969

Cas no 563 (Costa Rica) - Date de la plainte: 01-OCT. -68 - Clos

1. 50. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 1 October 1968, sent directly to the ILO by the Permanent Congress for Trade Union Unity of the Workers of Latin America, the headquarters of which are in Santiago de Chile.
2. 51. The Government furnished its observations in a communication dated 19 November 1968.
3. 52. Costa Rica 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

• Allegations relating to Measures Taken against a Representative of the Complainant Organisation
  53. 53 The complainant organisation denounces a measure which it states was taken by the police of Costa Rica against Mr. Domingo Alvarez Narbona, who holds the post of cultural education officer in the aforesaid organisation. The person in question was travelling to Costa Rica as a representative of the complainant organisation, at the invitation of the General Confederation of Workers of Costa Rica, on a strictly trade union and cultural mission. He is said to have been compelled " rudely and violently " to leave the country when he arrived at the airport of San José, although his visa and papers were in order. The Permanent Congress for Trade Union Unity of the Workers of Latin America considers that this action is an infringement of the human rights proclaimed by the United Nations and of International Labour Conventions, in that " there has been arbitrary interference with the participation of our trade union organisations in educational and cultural work and with their international connections based on their membership and affiliation ".
  54. 54 In the copy (attached to the complaint) of a letter from the complainant organisation to the President of Costa Rica, it is stated that Mr. Alvarez Narbona was not even able to establish contact with the leaders of the above-mentioned Costa Rican Organisation; he was given no valid explanation to justify " such an unusual and anti-democratic measure "; nor was he allowed to get in touch with the diplomatic representatives of his country. The complainants consider that what is at issue is not merely a measure taken against an individual but an aggressive policy of repression and persecution against the trade union movement they represent.
  55. 55 In its observations the Government states that the alleged incident referred to in the complaint did not take place. According to verbal information submitted by the Department of Criminal Investigation and by the Migration Department of the Ministry of Public Security, Mr. Alvarez Narbona entered the country on 26 September 1968, without permission to stay in Costa Rica being actually refused to him. The Government adds that certain precautions were taken to ascertain the true purpose of his visit, not only because letters to prominent members of the Communist Party (which is illegal in Costa Rica) had been confiscated from him but also because it was rumoured that Mr. Alvarez Narbona had come to take part in subversive activities planned in one of the banana centres of the Atlantic zone. The Government states that the delay angered Mr. Alvarez Narbona, who violently expressed his wish to leave the country immediately; he went through with his decision of his own free will, without any order to that effect being given by the authorities.
  56. 56 The Government states that in accordance with the Havana Pan-American Convention of 1928, ratified by Costa Rica, and with the Migration Regulations, the Costa Rican migration authorities enjoy full and unrestricted powers to admit only those foreigners who do not endanger public order or national security. The Government goes on to say that the precautionary measures taken in this case are acts of sovereignty that all States have the right to exercise freely in order to safeguard their security. The power to refuse entry to a foreigner not domiciled in the country, even if this foreigner says he represents an international trade union organisation (not known to the Government) or is invited by a national trade union organisation, is not restricted by the International Labour Conventions ratified by Costa Rica.
  57. 57 The Committee is thus faced with conflicting information submitted by the complainants and the Government respectively. The former claim that the person concerned was compelled to leave the country, and they attribute this measure to an alleged policy of repression against their organisation. The Government on the other hand, without denying that this person arrived in the country with his visa and papers in order, states that he was not actually refused permission to stay in the country but that, with a view to ascertaining the purpose of his visit, the authorities adopted certain precautionary measures. The Government does not explain the exact nature of these measures but, from its observations, it would appear that Mr. Alvarez Narbona was prevented from entering the country immediately and that he therefore decided to leave the country of his own free will.
  58. 58 The complainants relate this question to the right of national workers' organisations to affiliate with international organisations. This right is embodied in Article 5 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) In previous cases the Committee has applied the principle that this right of affiliation carries with it the right of representatives of national unions to maintain contact with the international organisations with which they are affiliated and to take part in the work of such organisations. In one case the Committee pointed out that a further corollary of the right of affiliation is the right of national trade union organisations to receive the benefits which may result from such affiliation.
  59. 59 From the information available it cannot be concluded that the actual right of affiliation of the national organisation concerned with the Permanent Congress for Trade Union Unity of the Workers of Latin America has been questioned.
  60. 60 In the past the Committee has considered that it was not competent to deal with measures deriving from national legislation on aliens unless these measures had direct repercussions on the exercise of trade union rights. In the present case such measures could indeed have repercussions on the rights mentioned in paragraph 58 above.
  61. 61 According to the Government's statement, the precautionary measures taken to safeguard its security were based on the Havana Pan-American Convention of 1928 and on the Migration Regulations. The Committee notes that, in accordance with this Convention, States have the right to establish, through their legislation, the conditions under which foreigners may enter and reside in their territory. The adoption of the above-mentioned Regulations would therefore comply with this Convention.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 62. The Committee considers that, in any case, governments have the right to take the necessary measures to guarantee public order and national security, which includes ascertaining the purpose of visits to the country by persons against whom there are grounds for suspicion from this point of view. The present case concerns an official of an international trade union Organisation who apparently wished to exercise the right of contacting a national affiliated Organisation and taking part in its work, who had obtained a visa from the Costa Rican authorities and concerning whom certain rumours had arisen. The Committee considers that in order to avoid the danger of the above-mentioned right being restricted, the authorities should check up on each specific case as quickly as possible and should aim-on the basis of objective criteria-at ascertaining whether or not there exist facts which might have real repercussions on public order and security.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 63. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the Governing Body, as it did in another case, to point out to the Government that it would be desirable, in situations of this kind, to seek an agreement through appropriate discussions in which the authorities as well as the leaders and organisations concerned may clarify their positions.