Interim Report - Report No 259, November 1988

1. 476. The Committee has already examined this case on three occasions, the
   • last being at its February 1988 meeting, when it presented an interim report.
   • (See 254th Report, paras. 351-369, approved by the Governing Body at its 239th
   • Session.) Since then the Government transmitted certain information and
   • observations in a communication dated 30 April 1988, received in the ILO only
2. on 20 May 1988. Subsequently, in a letter dated 30 May 1988 the International
   • Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) presented new allegations.
3. 477. Paraguay 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 478. The allegations which remain outstanding in this case relate to the
2. detention of trade union activists and leaders whose names are supplied by the
3. complainants, to violent repression of peaceful trade union demonstrations,
4. and to acts of interference and pressure exerted against trade union
5. organisations and their leaders.
6. 479. In particular the complainants referred to the climate of violence and
7. repression affecting the trade union movement in 1986 and 1987 in the
8. hospital, banking, transport, press, teaching and agricultural sectors.
9. 480. The complainants referred to the questioning of doctors during a strike
10. which took place on 25 April 1986 at the Clinicas Hospital (namely Dr. Carlos
11. Filizzola and Messrs. José Bellasaó, Ursino Barrios, Anibal Carrillo and Juan
12. Masi), the ban on 1986 May Day celebrations, the subsequent violent repression
13. and large number of persons injured by the forces of order and taken to
14. hospital, the attacks perpetrated on 3 May by some 150 militants of the
15. Colorado party who were authorised to enter a hospital and are said to have
16. struck doctors and nurses who were attending the injured, and, lastly, the
17. destruction of the anduti radio station by the same group on the ground that
18. this radio supported the workers and their organisations during the trade
19. union demonstrations. Subsequently the complainants stated that the doctors
20. who had been arrested during the strike had been released for lack of evidence
21. of their having committed an offence.
22. 481. The complainants also referred to a police attack on the headquarters of
23. the Federation of Bank Employees (FETRABAN) in April 1986, and again in March
24. 1987, and to the detention for a number of days in March 1987 of the General
25. Secretary of the Workers' Inter- Trade Union Movement (MIT), Mr. Victor Baez,
26. during a meeting of his organisation. Mr. Baez was subsequently released.
27. 482. The complainants also alleged that in March 1987 Raquel Aquino, leader
28. of secondary-school students, was held at the Pastor prison for having
29. expressed her solidarity with the trade union movement, and that Margarita
30. Cappuro de Seiferheld, the leader of the MIT, was obliged to give up her post
31. as philosophy teacher at the national girls' college since she was forbidden
32. to teach.
33. 483. In addition the complainants denounced the arrest, in October 1985 at
34. Tacumbu prison, of Mr. Sebastián Rodríguez, General Secretary of the Bus
35. Drivers' Union (Route No. 21), for having organised a music festival to
36. collect money on behalf of his unemployed colleagues, and the arrest of trade
37. union leader Marcelino Corazón Medina, on 20 September 1985, then from 1 May
38. to 3 June 1986 and again from 27 February to 30 May 1987, at Ononnondivepa,
39. where he was tortured.
40. 484. Subsequently, in a communication of 23 October 1987, the International
41. Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) stated that on 20 October 1987 the
42. police used violence to prevent the holding of a general meeting of the
43. National Union of Construction Workers, violently charging the members and
44. injuring a large number who had to be rushed to medical stations.
45. 485. The Government did not reply to the repeated requests concerning the
46. serious allegations made against it by the complainant organisations.
47. Consequently, in the absence of a denial of these allegations on the part of
48. the Government, the Committee could only conclude that there had been serious
49. violations of the principles of freedom of association in respect of these
50. various complaints.
51. 486. In these circumstances the Governing Body, on the recommendation of the
52. Committee, adopted the following interim conclusions at its February 1988
53. Session:
54. a) The Committee strongly regrets that the Government has not replied to the
55. repeated requests for information sent to it. It expresses its serious concern
56. at the allegations in respect of repression of the trade union movement in
57. 1986 and 1987 and, in particular, the arrest of trade union militants and
58. leaders named by the complainants, the ban on peaceful trade union
59. demonstrations on May Day which were violently repressed, and the interference
60. in the affairs of trade union organisations and pressure brought to bear on
61. them and on union members.
62. b) The Committee recalls that a free and independent trade union movement
63. cannot develop in an atmosphere of insecurity and fear.
64. c) The Committee urges the Government to take measures to ensure that the
65. authorities concerned are given appropriate instructions to eliminate the
66. danger for trade union activities represented by such measures as the arrest
67. of trade unionists, the banning of trade union demonstrations on May Day and
68. the holding of trade union meetings.
69. d) The Committee requests the Government to take measures to guarantee
70. respect for freedom of association in law and in fact, in accordance with the
71. obligations arising from Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, ratified by Paraguay, and
72. to keep it informed of these measures, in particular stating whether judicial
73. inquiries have been undertaken following the repression which took place on
74. hospital premises on 3 May 1986, in order to determine who is responsible and
75. to punish the guilty parties.
76. B. Further allegations
77. 487. In a telegram dated 30 May 1988, the ICFTU alleges that the following
78. agricultural workers' leaders were arrested: Marcelino Corazón Medina, Pedro
79. Gamana, Carmelino Torales, Acadio Flores and Teodoro González. Furthermore,
80. Fidencio Rojas, General Secretary of the Union of Workers of Fenix SA, is said
81. to have been threatened by the security guards of the enterprise for which he
82. works.
83. C. The Government's reply
84. 488. In a letter dated 30 April 1988, which reached the ILO on 20 May 1988,
85. the Government supplied information on some of the outstanding allegations.
86. 489. As regards the allegation concerning the arrest of Marcelino Corazón
87. Medina in 1985 and again in 1987, and the torture to which he is said to have
88. been subjected, the Government acknowledges that he was prosecuted in 1985 and
89. 1987 for infringing Act No. 209 concerning defence of the public peace and
90. individual freedom but affirms that, contrary to what the complainants
91. maintain, he was not tortured and that at all times the authorities treated
92. him in accordance with the law. According to the Government, Mr. Medina
93. enjoys full freedom in the country although he is a notorious agitator who
94. passes himself off as a trade unionist of a fictitious union called the
95. Committee of "Agricultural Producers" or of "Landless Peasants".
96. 490. As regards the allegation concerning the arrest in 1986 of Mr. Sebastián
97. Rodríguez, former General Secretary of the Bus Drivers' Union (Route No. 21),
98. the Government states that Mr. Rodríguez is no longer employed by the
99. undertaking, that he no longer belongs to the union and that he is not
100. detained. According to the Government, he was dismissed and has lodged an
101. appeal with the courts.
102. 491. As regards the detention in 1986 of Dr. Carlos Filizzola and of José
103. Bellasaó, Ursino Barrios, Anibal Carrillo and Juan Masi in the Clinicas
104. Hospital affair, the Government states that these persons are public employees
105. and that Dr. Filizzola led public demonstrations with a view to forcing the
106. authorities to grant pay increases.
107. 492. Going into further detail, the Government adds that the hospital in
108. question is a university hospital coming under the faculty of medicine of the
109. National University of Asunción and that, as such, it is financed from the
110. national budget. The Government states that it had moreover, when budgetary
111. resources permitted, granted considerable pay increases to the workers in this
112. hospital who are public employees and consequently fall outside the scope of
113. the Paraguayan Labour Code (section 2) but are covered by Act No. 200/70 in
114. respect of the public service.
115. 493. Nevertheless, the Government goes on to say that under the leadership of
116. Dr. Filizzola these public employees persisted with pay claims that were not
117. in line with the percentage authorised by the Government under the general
118. budget for 1986 and that their claims were not submitted through the lawful
119. channels and relevant institutions, i.e. by means of the citizens' right of
120. petition. Instead they took the form of a street disturbance. Faced with this
121. situation the police were obliged to intervene to restore public order and
122. social peace.
123. 494. The Government adds that Dr. Filizzola was involved in criminal
124. proceedings that were brought against him before the Criminal Court of First
125. Instance of the Ninth Chamber by a certain Eladio Ramón Penayo and that he was
126. charged with having infringed Act No. 294 concerning the defence of the
127. democracy and Act No. 209/70 concerning the defence of the public peace and
128. individual freedom, issued under section 99 of the Code of Penal Procedure. In
129. Ruling No. 677 of 17 December 1986, the judge, having considered the evidence
130. in the case, ordered that Dr. Filizzola be held in preventive detention and
131. then, in a further ruling (No. 715 of 23 December 1986) lifted this measure.
132. At present, the Government states, Dr. Filizzola is freely exercising his
133. profession as a doctor and enjoys his full rights as a citizen.
134. 495. The court rulings concerning this case are enclosed with the
135. Government's communication. It can be seen from these rulings that Dr.
136. Filizzola was accused by one of the participants in the demonstration of 28
137. November 1986, Mr. Penayo, of instigating the overthrow of the Government, of
138. describing the President of the Republic, General Alfredo Stroessner, as a
139. dictator and of systematically imposing communist doctrine by creating
140. divisions between citizens, together with disturbances, agitation and other
141. destabilising activities. According to Mr. Penayo, Dr. Filizzola had written
142. that "we find ourselves in a situation of grave political and economic crisis
143. under this dictatorship that has been in force for 32 years", a statement
144. which Mr. Penayo considers absurd since, according to him, free and democratic
145. general elections are held in the country periodically. Dr. Filizzola is also
146. said to have stated that "dialogue is not for any dictatorship; dictatorships
147. are not open to dialogue with anyone. Consequently we must realise that what
148. is essential now is to mobilise to overthrow the dictatorship". According to
149. Court Decision No. 677 of 17 December 1986, Dr. Filizzola incurred a sentence
150. of five years' imprisonment for instigating an armed uprising against the
151. constitutional authorities in order to replace the republican democratic
152. system in force by the communist system (section 1 of Act No. 294 concerning
153. the defence of democracy) and for spreading communist doctrine (section 2).
154. Under this Act, where offences are committed by means of the press, radio,
155. etc., the publication, radio programme, etc., are suspended for between one
156. and six months and closed down if the offence is repeated (section 8).
157. 496. Nevertheless, in Ruling No. 715 of 23 December 1986, communicated by the
158. Government, the judge decided, after studying the evidence in the case, that
159. there was insufficient proof to change the preventive detention to a prison
160. sentence and ordered Dr. Filizzola's release.
161. 497. As regards allegations concerning the ban on the holding of May Day
162. celebrations in 1986, the Government strongly refutes the complainants'
163. allegation that the demonstration was repressed and that there had been
164. casualties.
165. 498. As regards the allegations that members of the Colorado party struck
166. doctors and nurses who were treating injured persons on 3 May 1986 in the
167. Clinicas Hospital and that they destroyed the anduti radio station on the
168. ground that this radio supported workers and their organisations in their
169. trade union demonstrations, the Government makes no comment on the first
170. allegation but recognises that the anduti radio transmitter was closed down on
171. the decision of the national telecommunications administration. It denies,
172. however, that militants of the Colorado party destroyed the anduti radio
173. staton as maintained by the ICFTU. It affirms that the radio premises are in
174. perfect condition and are being used by the opposition for broadcasts in which
175. numerous persons take part, including representatives of outside political
176. parties.
177. 499. As regards the complaint of the Workers' Inter-Trade Union Movement
178. (MIT) that Margarita Capurro de Seiferheld, leader of the MIT, was forced to
179. give up her teaching post at the girls' college, the Government explains that
180. this penalty was imposed solely because of irregularities that had been
181. committed by this person in the course of her duties, contravening teaching
182. standards and the national provisions in respect of education, as stated by
183. the Ministry of Education and Religion.
184. 500. As regards Mr. Victor Baez, General Secretary of the MIT, who is said to
185. have been detained for a number of days in March 1987 during the meeting of
186. his organisation, the Government firmly denies that he was detained on 18
187. March 1987. It explains that he was merely summoned to appear before the chief
188. of police for public order in the capital for questioning concerning acts
189. which had disturbed public order and peace since he had claimed to "disregard
190. the legal authorities of the country" and had "shown disrespect for social
191. standards", which has nothing to do with his struggle to defend trade union
192. interests. According to the Government, creating disturbances in the streets
193. and upsetting the minds of peaceful citizens is not how one defends the
194. workers' trade union interests. Once the formalities for which he had been
195. summoned had been completed, he left the police premises on the decision of
196. the authorities and not because of pressure exerted from inside or outside by
197. the ICFTU. At no time was he kept in a police cell; nor was he detained for as
198. long as the complainants alleged.
199. 501. As regards this trade union leader, the Government also states that he
200. is exercising his civil rights as is proven by the fact that in 1987 and 1988
201. he was able to go to Rio de Janeiro and to Europe as well as to the World
202. Congress of the ICFTU in Australia, that his militant activities take place in
203. public and that he is a member of an opposition political party of fascist
204. origin.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 502. The Committee takes note of all the information and observations
   • furnished by the Government on some of the allegations still outstanding in
   • this case.
2. 503. The Committee nevertheless observes that the Government has not
   • commented in detail on several serious allegations made against it by the
   • complainants, especially concerning the incidents said to have taken place at
   • the Clinicas Hospital on 3 May 1986, that it has not denied that some members
   • of the Colorado party, on hospital premises, struck doctors and nurses who
   • were tending patients injured by the forces of order when a trade union
   • demonstration was repressed; moreover, the Government has furnished no
   • information on the allegation concerning the arrest in March 1987 of Raquel
   • Aquino, a secondary-school students' leader, said to have been detained in the
   • Pastor prison for having expressed her solidarity with the trade union
   • movement.
3. 504. Finally the Government has not commented in detail on the ICFTU's
   • allegations dated 30 May 1988 that several agricultural workers' leaders
   • (whose names are given), including Marcelino Corazón, were again arrested in
4. May 1988 and that the General Secretary of the Union of Workers of Fenix SA
   • were threatened by the security guards of the undertaking.
5. 505. As regards the points on which the Government has supplied detailed
   • replies, the Committee observes, firstly, concerning the agricultural workers'
   • leader Marcelino Corazón Medina, that the Government recognises that he was
   • prosecuted in 1985 and 1987 for infringing Act No. 209 concerning the defence
   • of public peace and individual freedom but has not supplied information on the
   • actual offences he is said to have committed. The Government merely states
   • that this person is a notorious agitator who tries to pass himself off as a
   • trade unionist in a fictitious trade union organisation.
6. 506. In a number of cases where the complainants alleged that workers or
   • trade union leaders had been arrested for trade union activities, and the
   • government replies amounted to general denials or were simply to the effect
   • that the arrests were made on the grounds of subversive activites, 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, in order to be able to make a
   • proper examination of the allegations. (See Digest of decisions and principles
   • of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO,
   • para. 115.)
7. 507. In the present case, since Act No. 209 concerning the defence of public
   • peace and individual freedom permits the imposition of prison sentences for
   • offences based on one's opinion, and in view of the fact that, according to
   • the ICFTU's allegations, the agricultural workers' leader Marcelino Corazón
   • Medina and four of his companions were again arrested on 18 May 1988, the
   • Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information on the actual
   • charges brought against these leaders, to communicate the court judgements in
   • the case with the grounds adduced therefore, if they have been sentenced, and
   • to state if they have now been released.
8. 508. The Committee observes, secondly, that the Government has not commented
   • in detail on the allegation that Mr. Sebastián Rodríguez, former General
   • Secretary of the Bus Drivers' Union (Route No. 21) was arrested in 1986, but
   • has confined itself to stating that this person is not detained, that he is
   • not employed in the undertaking and that he no longer belongs to the union.
   • The Government does, however, acknowledge the fact that he was dismissed and
   • has appealed against his dismissal to the courts.
9. 509. The Committee recalls, in general, that no person should be
   • discriminated against in his employment because of his trade union membership
   • or lawful trade union activities and that appropriate measures should be
   • adopted to guarantee the free exercise of trade union rights, accompanied by
   • measures for the protection of workers against acts of anti-union
   • discrimination in their employment.
10. 510. Since the Government states that this person was dismissed and has
    • appealed against his dismissal to the courts, the Committee requests the
    • Government to keep it informed of the outcome of this appeal.
11. 511. Concerning the strike which took place at the Clinicas Hospital, the
    • Committee notes the Government's statement that the workers in this hospital
    • are only public employees who do not enjoy the right to organise and its
    • explanation that these persons had asked for pay increases in the course of
    • public demonstrations, thus contravening Act No. 200 in respect of the public
    • service instead of availing themselves of the citizens' right of petition.
12. 512. The Committee considers that this aspect of the case raises two
    • questions: firstly that of the right to organise of public employees. On this
    • point, the Committee recalls that in accordance with Convention No. 87
    • ratified by Paraguay, public employees, like any other workers, should have
    • the right to organise for trade union purposes (Article 2 of the Convention).
    • Moreover, according to Convention No. 98, only public servants engaged in the
    • administration of the State can be excluded from the right to negotiate
    • conditions of employment collectively (Article 6 of the Convention). The
    • employees of a public hospital, namely the doctors and nurses working there,
    • cannot be considered to be "public servants engaged in the administration of
    • the State".
13. 513. Consequently, the Committee - as has the Committee of Experts on the
    • Application of Conventions and Recommendations - once again requests the
    • Government to ensure the amendment of its legislation, especially Act No. 200
    • respecting the public service (sections 31 and 36) which allows public
    • employees the right to associate only for cultural and social purposes and
    • forbids them to adopt collective resolutions against measures taken by the
    • competent authorities. The Committee invites the Government to adopt specific
    • provisions granting the right to organise to public employees and to set up
    • machinery for settling collective disputes in the public service in general
    • and in the hospital sector in particular in which the persons concerned will
    • have confidence.
14. 514. Secondly, there is the question of the right of the employees of a
    • public hospital to go on strike. In this respect the Committee observes,
    • according to the allegations, that the persons concerned were prosecuted for
    • having resorted to a strike to secure pay increases while they were carrying
    • out their duties in a public hospital. The Committee has already had the
    • occasion to state that the right to strike may indeed be restricted or even
    • prohibited in the public service (public employees being those who act as
    • agents of the public authorities) or in essential services in the strict sense
    • of the term (i.e. services whose interruption would endanger the life,
    • personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). In previous
    • cases the Committee has considered the hospital sector to constitute an
    • essential service. (See 217th Report, Case No. 1091 (India), para. 443, and
    • Case No. 1099 (Norway), para. 467.)
15. 515. Nevertheless, the Committee has stated on many occasions that where the
    • right to strike has been restricted or refused in a service considered to be
    • essential, workers in this service should enjoy adequate protection so as to
    • compensate for the restrictions imposed on their freedom of action as regards
    • disputes in the said service. In this particular case, the restriction of the
    • right to strike of doctors and nurses in the Clinicas Hospital should be
    • offset by appropriate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration
    • procedures in which the persons concerned can take part at every stage and in
    • which the awards, once made, are fully and promptly implemented, as the
    • Committee had the occasion to state in a previous case. (See 236th Report,
    • Case No. 1263 (Japan), para. 270.)