Interim Report - Report No 241, November 1985

1. 522. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions presented the complaints corresponding to Cases Nos. 1204 (communications dated 20 and 27 May and 13 and 16 October 1983), 1275 (communication dated 17 April 1984), 1301 (communications dated 6 and 25 September 1984), and 1341 (communication dated 24 June 1985). The Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) presented the complaint corresponding to Case No. 1328 in a communication dated 6 April 1985.
2. 523. Having received certain observations from the Government, the Committee examined Cases Nos. 1204 and 1275 at its meeting in November 1984, and submitted interim reports to the Governing Body (see 236th Report of the Committee, paras. 426 to 443 and 444 to 458, approved by the Governing Body at its 238th Session (November 1984)).
3. 524. The Government representative at the 71st Session of the International Labour Conference (June 1985) subsequently handed in a number of documents containing certain information relating to Cases Nos. 1204, 1275 and 1301.
4. 525. At the 71st Session (Geneva, 1985) of the International Labour Conference, the Government representative of Paraguay informed the Committee on the Application of Standards that his Government had requested a direct contacts mission to deal specifically with the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 (both ratified by Paraguay).
5. 526. Following the discussion of the case of Paraguay in the Committee on the Application of Standards, the Government presented a communication dated 20 June 1985 to the Office, expressly requesting that the forthcoming direct contacts mission would also examine the cases pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association.
6. 527. The Director-General of the ILO appointed Mr. von Potobsky, a former official of the ILO, as his representative to carry out this mission, which took place from 23 to 27 September 1985 in Asunción, and which also included a visit to Buenos Aires on 21 September for the purpose of contacting and discussing with the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers in Exile (CPTE). The representative of the Director-General was accompanied on the mission by Mr. Alberto Odero, a member of the Freedom of Association Branch of the Department of International Labour Standards, and Mr. Luis Zamudio, Regional Adviser on Standards. The report on the mission is attached.
7. 528. 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 529. Following the mission, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the International Federation of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers (IFPAAW), in communications dated respectively 2 and 3 October 1985, presented new allegations in connection with Case No. 1341. These organisations alleged in their communications that Marcelino Corazón Medina, chairman of the Co-ordination Committee of Agricultural Producers, has been detained for over ten days, having been arbitrarily imprisoned in the police station in Asunción, where he is being subjected to physical and psychological torture and deprived of visiting rights. He is now on a hunger strike and, since he is in a fragile state of health, it is feared that his life is in danger. In a communication dated 15 October 1985, the ICFTU states that Mr. Corazón Medina has been transferred, in a serious condition, to the prison hospital. In addition, it alleges that for about 30 days the Government has arbitrarily imprisoned Sebastián Rodríguez (Secretary General of the Drivers' Trade Union of "Asunción-Fernando de la Mora" Line 21) for the sole reason of having organised a musical festival to raise funds for his unemployed colleagues. The Government sent certain information in a communication dated 30 October 1985 in which it states, in particular, that Mr. Marcelino Corazón Medina has been released.
2. 530. The Committee would first like to thank Mr. Geraldo von Potobsky for having accepted to carry out the direct-contacts mission, and for his detailed report on the cases under consideration, which has enabled the Committee to examine them. The Committee considers that the report of the representative of the Director-General demonstrates the usefulness of missions of this kind in clarifying the issues raised in the allegations of the complainant organisations.
3. 531. Since the contents of the allegations and the information supplied by the Government, as well as the information obtained by the representative of the Director-General during the mission, are covered in the report on the mission, the Committee may proceed directly with its conclusions on each case.

A. General conclusions

1. 532. The Committee takes note of the report of the representative of the Director-General on the mission carried out from 23 to 27 September 1985 in Paraguay. The Committee also notes that, as the report on the mission states, the representative of the Director-General was provided with every facility by the authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour to enable him to carry out the mission. The Committee observes in this respect that information was obtained during the mission on all of the cases under consideration. It regrets, however, that it was not possible to arrange an interview between the representative of the Director-General and the Minister of the Interior or a high official of that ministry, in connection with certain specific allegations falling within its sphere of competence which were made in the context of Cases Nos. 1204 and 1341.

B. Conclusions on Case No. 1204

1. 533. Regarding the allegations as to detentions, the Committee observes that all of the persons concerned (nine) have been released. The Committee regrets that the Government has failed to state the specific reasons for the detention of these persons, except in the case of Mr. Aldo Zuccolillo (detained for systematically and crudely harassing the Government in the publication "ABC Color") and of Mr. Jorge Alvarenga (a doctor detained for acts unrelated to trade unionism, according to the information supplied by the Government). The Committee also observes that the Government denies in every case, either explicitly or implicitly, that the detentions were connected with trade union activities. In these circumstances, in view of the lack of information in most cases on the specific reasons for the detentions, and given the time which has elapsed since the allegations were presented (May and October 1983), and the fact that all of the persons concerned have been released, the Committee draws attention in general terms to the principle that the arrest or detention of trade union leaders and trade unionists for activities connected with the exercise of trade union rights is contrary to the principles of freedom of association (see, for example, 218th Report, Case No. 1129 (Nicaragua), para. 477).
2. 534. As regards the difficulties encountered by the Union of Journalists of Paraguay (SPP) for several years in its attempts to obtain legal personality, the Committee observes that in 1983 the Labour Directorate notified the trade union that it could not be set up because of defects of substance such as the existence of another association for the same purposes. The Committee also notes that there seems to have been a shift in the Government's position since then, since while it states that the SPP has not taken any steps since 1979 for its establishment, it affirms expressly that, from the legal standpoint, there is no reason why it should not be set up. While the Committee regrets that the present secretary-general of the SPP did not attend the appointment arranged with the representative of the Director-General, it hopes that the Union of Journalists of Paraguay will apply for and be granted legal personality in the near future. In addition, the Committee recalls that the existence of an organisation in a determined occupation should not constitute an obstacle to the establishment of another organisation, if the workers so wish.
3. 535. As regards the allegation of dismissal of workers from the "América Textil" undertaking, the Committee observes that there is a discrepancy between the contents of the allegations and the Government's statements. While both agree that dismissals occurred in this undertaking, the complainant organisation alleged that they had taken place after the presentation of requests in the trade unions' list of claims. The Government, however, stated that the dismissals (affecting 27 workers) had taken place a month before the trade union had applied to the authorities for recognition. The Committee regrets that the América Textil undertaking has refused to meet with the representative of the Director-General of the ILO and that it has not been possible to obtain information which would clarify the facts. In these circumstances, in view of the lack of sufficient information and given the proximity in time between the dismissals and the steps taken to set up a trade union in the undertaking concerned (a trade union which was not recognised because it failed to attain the number of members required by legislation, owing to the dismissals which took place), the Committee merely draws attention to the principle that no worker should be dismissed or subjected to other acts of discrimination in employment for carrying out trade union activities.
4. 536. Finally, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, there is no undertaking called "FRISA S.A." and that Radio Ñanduti was closed down not for the reasons given by the complainant organisation, but for political reasons.

C. Conclusions on Case No. 1275

1. 537. The Committee notes that, according to the mission report, the Labour Appeals Court, by decision of 27 December 1984, decided in favour of the claims of the Union of Employees of the Bank of Brazil on the matters in dispute regarding the renewal of the collective agreement.
2. 538. As regards the dismissal of trade unionists Duarte, Virgili and Cáceres, the Committee notes the information provided in the report of the representative of the Director-General. In view of the fact that this case is pending judgement in court, the Committee adjourns examination of this matter until judgement is pronounced and requests the Government to transmit a copy of the judgement as soon as it is handed down.

D. Conclusions on Case No. 1301

1. 539. The Committee observes that in this case the complainant organisation has alleged that, between 18 August and 10 September 1984, Melanio Morel, Gregorio Ojeda, Pedro Zárate, Carlos Castillo and Nicasio Guzmán, all of whom are trade union leaders or trade unionists belonging to the National Union of Construction Workers (SINATRAC) were detained while setting up a trade union in the ACEPAR iron and steel plant. The Committee also observes that three of these persons met with the representative of the Director-General and stated the following: (1) they had intended to set up a works committee in the undertaking which was building the ACEPAR plant; (2) on 18 August 1984, as they were preparing for an assembly which they had called at the bus stop near the ACEPAR plant, and after they had been warned by the police that they should not hold the assembly, they were detained by members of the armed forces; and (3) they had not been brought to trial.
2. 540. The Committee notes that, according to the authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour with whom the representative of the Director-General met, ACEPAR is a semi-public undertaking located in the military zone and run by military personnel. Moreover, according to the ministry authorities, the assembly which had been called was unauthorised and therefore could not be held. The organisers of the assembly had consequently been detained by the armed forces. They were later released without having been brought to trial.
3. 541. Although the Committee considers the fact that the legislation of a country, in order to prevent disruption of the public order, requires administrative authorisation for the organisation of meetings in public places does not run counter to the principles of freedom of association, it wishes to draw attention to the fact that given the absence of criminal acts in the present case, the mere fact of having organised a trade union assembly should not have resulted in the detention of the trade union leaders and trade unionists involved. Therefore, the Committee regrets the detention of these trade union leaders and trade unionists and draws the attention of the Government to the fact that detention of trade union leaders for activities connected with the exercise of trade union rights is contrary to the principles of freedom of association (see, for example, 218th Report, Case No. 1129 (Nicaragua), para. 477). Furthermore, in view of the fact that the period of detention lasted more than 20 days, and that none of the trade unionists was brought to trial, the Committee would emphasise the principle that any person who is detained should immediately be brought before the competent court.
4. 542. Finally, the Committee notes that, according to the detainees themselves, they were not dismissed, as they do not work in an employment relationship but as a crew engaged under a contract for services, although since being detained they have been unable to obtain contracts with building enterprises, only with individuals. The Committee also notes that, according to the authorities, the persons concerned do not appear to be actually working in the construction industry.

E. Conclusions of the Committee on Case No. 1328

1. 543. The Committee observes that the complainant organisation mainly objects to the recognition by the Ministry of Labour on 17 October 1984 of the executive committee elected at an assembly to reorganise the National Union of Construction Workers (SINATRAC), held on 13 October 1984 and led by the Secretary-General of that organisation, Milciades Giménez Díaz, a supporter of government policy.
2. 544. The Committee also observes that, some months earlier, on 11 March 1984, a split occurred in the executive committee of SINATRAC, dividing it into two different factions: one headed by Milciades Giménez Díaz, Secretary-General of SINATRAC, and the other by Lino Gómez, Deputy Secretary-General of SINATRAC. Each faction organised an assembly to elect a new executive committee, as the term of office of the existing committee was due to expire on 18 October 1985. Thus, the faction led by Milciades Giménez Díaz called an assembly on 13 October 1984, while the faction led by Lino Gómez called another for 14 October 1984, although the latter was postponed by the police and was held on 21 October 1984.
3. 545. On 17 October 1984, as stated, the Government recognised the executive committee elected at the assembly of 13 October 1984 led by Milciades Giménez Díaz. However, when it was informed of the executive committee elected on 21 October 1984 at the assembly led by Lino Gómez, the competent authority of the Ministry of Justice and Labour notified Lino Gómez on 21 November 1984 of the text of a decision of the legal consultant's office stating that recognition could not be granted since "by Resolution No. 1717 dated 17 October of the current year the Labour Directorate registered the National Union of Construction Workers, whose executive committee is currently in office, and its term of office is due to expire in 1987 according to its statutes". A subsequent decision issued by the legal consultant's office, notified by the Director of Labour on 15 February 1985, stated that an appeal could be lodged through the administrative disputes procedure.
4. 546. The Committee concludes that the authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour, aware of the existence of two assemblies to elect a new executive committee, appear to have based their recognition of one of the committees on considerations of time alone, that is, on the fact that the executive committee elected at the assembly led by Milciades Giménez Díaz was the first to apply for recognition. The Committee observes that the competent authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour, referring to the allegations, told the representative of the Director-General that the situation was sometimes confusing, in the general context of the internal disagreement among the members of the executive committee of SINATRAC. According to the ministry authorities, once Lino Gómez had been informed of the decision to recognise the executive committee elected on 13 October 1984, he could have lodged an administrative appeal against that decision.
5. 547. The Committee considers that, irrespective of whether such an appeal was possible (which Lino Gómez's group denies), the decision of 17 October 1984 of the Ministry of Justice and Labour to recognise the executive committee elected by the assembly of 13 October 1984 constitutes a decision that was arbitrary and taken in too great haste. The Ministry was fully aware that another duly convened assembly was to be held a few days later (on 21 October) for the same purpose. The Committee would like to point out that when internal disputes arise in a trade union organisation they should be resolved by the persons concerned, by appointing an independent mediator with the agreement of the parties concerned, or by intervention of the judicial authorities.

F. Conclusions on Case No. 1341

1. 548. The Committee observes that the representative of the Director-General was able to note the police surveillance and shadowing to which Ricardo Esperanza Leiva, former leader of the Liebig Refrigeration Union and leader of the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers in Exile (CPTE), is being subjected. The Committee requests the Government to alter what it calls the methods of protecting the life and safety of Mr. Leiva so that, if considered objectively, there can be no confusion with police surveillance.
2. 549. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, Mr. Marcelino Corazón Medina has been released. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the alleged torture of this trade union leader indicating what were the concrete facts leading to his detention, as well as on the alleged detention of Sebastián Rodríguez, Secretary-General of the Drivers' Union of Line 21.

Z. ANNEX

• REPORT OF MR. GERALDO VON POTOBSKY ON THE DIRECT CONTACTS MISSION CARRIED OUT
• IN PARAGUAY (23-27 SEPTEMBER 1985)
  1. 1 At the 71st Session of the International Labour Conference (Geneva, 1985),
• the Government representative of Paraguay informed the Committee on the
• Application of Conventions and Recommendations that "his Government has
• requested a direct contacts mission to deal specifically with the application
• of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98" (both ratified by Paraguay), and pointed out
• that "the direct contacts will be carried out with the presence of the three
• groups (government, employers' organisations and workers' organisations). The
• Workers' member of Austria (Mr. Maier) "hoped that when the direct contacts
• mission went to Paraguay it would also deal with the cases pending before the
• Committee on Freedom of Association".
  2. 2 For their part the Workers' members of Uruguay and Argentina expressed
• their hope that the mission would be able to make contact with the Paraguayan
• Confederation of Workers in Exile.
  3. 3 Following the discussion of the case of Paraguay in the Committee on the
• Application of Conventions and Recommendations, the Government sent to the
• Office a communication dated 28 June 1985 in which it expressedly requested
• that the direct contacts mission to be carried out should also examine the
• cases pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association.
  4. 4 The Director-General of the ILO appointed me as his representative to carry
• out this mission, which took place between 23 and 27 September in Asunción and
• which also included a visit to Buenos Aires on 21 September with a view to
• establishing contact and holding discussions with the Paraguayan Confederation
• of Workers in Exile (CPTE). I was accompanied on the mission by Mr. Alberto
• Odero, member of the Freedom of Association Branch of the International Labour
• Standards Department, and by Mr. Luis Zamudio, Regional Adviser on standards.
  5. 5 During the mission we met Mr. Eugenio Jacquet, Minister of Justice and
• Labour, and Mr. Carlos Doldán del Puerto, Director of Labour, and had several
• meetings with the latter and his collaborators. We also spoke with
• representatives of the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers (CPT), the
• Federation of Production, Industry and Commerce (FEPPINCO), the Paraguayan
• Industrial Union, the Federation of Bank Employees (FETRABAN) and the National
• Union of Building Workers (SINATRAC) as well as other trade union leaders,
• trade unionists and interested parties. The list of these persons appears at
• the end of this report.
  6. 6 It was not possible to arrange a meeting with the Minister of the Interior
• or any other high official of this Ministry, before whom we should have liked
• to place certain specific allegations falling within their sphere of
• competence (Cases Nos. 1204 and 1341) in order to obtain information and
• comments.
  7. 7 During the meeting with the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers in Exile
• (CPTE), its leaders provided us with information on the trade union situation
• in their country and expressed their surprise that this had been the first
• time that the ILO was carrying out a mission of this kind in Paraguay.
• Furthermore, they made a formal observation concerning the time which had
• elapsed concerning the examination of the complaints presented. Finally, they
• requested that the Ministry of Justice and Labour should be informed
• concerning the imminent return to the country of Mr. Julio Etcheverry
• Espínola, Secretary-General of the organisation, who hoped to be able to enjoy
• all his constitutional rights. The Minister of Justice and Labour stated that
• Mr. Etcheverry would enjoy these rights like any other citizen, provided that
• he observed the law of the country.
  8. 8 I should like to place on record that I was given every assistance by the
• authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour in carrying out the mission
• for which I am extremely grateful. I should also like to thank all those
• persons interviewed for the information which they provided.
  9. 9 The present report includes various documents which we received during the
• course of the mission for the purposes of our inquiry.
• Cases pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association
  10. 10 At present five complaints against the Government of Paraguay (Cases Nos.
  1204. 1204, 1275, 1301, 1328 and 1341) are pending before the Committee on Freedom
• of Association. The Committee examined Cases Nos. 1204 and 1275 at its meeting
• of November 1984 (see 236th Report of the Committee, paragraphs 426-44 and
  448. 448-458) and presented an interim report to the Governing Body since the
• Government had not responded to certain matters or was requested to provide
• additional information.
  11. 11 The Government representative to the 71st Session of the International
• Labour Conference handed the Office a series of documents which contained
• information concerning Cases Nos. 1204, 1275 and 1301. No observations from
• the Government were received concerning Cases Nos. 1328 and 1341.
  12. 12 During the mission we discussed the matters raised in the cases before the
• Committee on Freedom of Association with officials of the Ministry of Labour
• and various interested parties.
• Case No. 1204
  13. 13 This complaint was presented by the International Confederation of Free
• Trade Unions in communications dated 20 and 27 May, 13 October and 16 December
  1983. 1983 The Government sent certain observations in a communication dated 14
• September 1984. The Committee on Freedom of Association examined the case, as
• already noted, at its meeting of November 1984 and made the following
• recommendations which summarise with sufficient clarity the matters which
• remained pending (see 236th Report, paragraph 443):
  • (a) Regarding the arrest of 19 members of the the Trade Union Solidarity
• Movement (MSS) as part of a campaign of repression following the setting up of
• this organisation, the Committee observes that, according to the Government,
• one of the persons concerned is a fugitive from justice who has not been
• arrested and 13 others were released without the judicial authorities
• upholding any charges against them. The Committee deeply regrets that these 13
• trade unionists were deprived of their freedom for more than a year in most
• cases and draws the Government's attention to the fact that the arrest and
• detention of trade union leaders and trade unionists for trade union reasons
• constitute a violation of the principles of freedom of association. The
• Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the arrest of
• Stella Rufinelli, Margarita Elías, Damián Vera, Juan Carlos Oviedo and María
• Herminia Feliciangeli following the setting up of the MSS of which they are
• said to be members.
  • (b) The Committee regrets that the Government has not replied to the remaining
• allegations: the difficulties encountered by the Union of Journalists of
• Paraguay (SPP) for the past four years in its attempts to obtain legal
• personality; the threatened exile of the leaders and members of the SPP; the
• arrest and trial of the leader of the SPP, Alcibiades González del Valle; the
• arrest of Aldo Zucalillo, director of ABC Color for allowing the publication
• of matters of trade union interest; the threats against, harassment of and
• restrictions imposed on this newspaper for publishing the setting up of the
• MSS; the arrest of Dr. Jorge Alvarenga and Dr. Carlos Cuevas during a
• round-table discussion on "trade unionism and repression"; the arbitrary
• dismissal of the workers from the La Americana SA textile company following
• the submission by the trade unions of a list of demands; the threatened
• dismissal of 800 workers of the FRISA SA company following the request by the
• trade unions for payment of unpaid wages; the closing down of Radio Ñandutí
• for transmitting messages from the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers in
• Exile and a ban on the commentator and director of the radio station from
• exercising his profession. The Committee requests the Government to send its
• observations on this matter without delay.
  14. 14 The Government provided the following information during the 71st Session
• of the International Labour Conference:
  • - All the persons arested for infractions of Act No. 209 to which the
• complainant had referred are now free. María Herminia Feliciangeli was held
• under arrest between 11 May and 18 September 1983; Margarita Elías Acosta,
• from 11 May to 18 September 1983; María Estela Rufinelli, from 11 to 30 May
  1983. 1983; Juan Carlos Oviedo, from 11 to 16 May 1983; and Pedro Damían Vera, from
  12. 12 to 24 May 1983.
      • - The Union of Journalists of Paraguay requested its recognition in 1979. The
  13. authorities noted substantial errors in the setting up of the trade union
• which needed to be remedied; in particular, an association with the same
• objectives, called the Press Association of Paraguay, already existed and
• furthermore opposed the establishment of a new trade union; moreover, there
• was no unanimous agreement between the supporters of the trade union
• concerning its creation since a group of journalists opposed its
• establishment. In the circumstances, the Labour Directorate informed the
• applicants on 6 September 1983 that they would first of all have to resolve
• their existing internal problems before any decision could be taken concerning
• the recognition of the union. Since then, none of the necessary formalities
• has been taken with a view to the registration of the union.
  • - Carlos Cuevas Miranda, a doctor, was arrested on 4 July 1983. Legal
• proceedings were initiated against him for infraction of Act No. 209. He was
• released from prison on 11 July 1983 on the instructions of the Judge of the
• Penal Court of the First Instance and at the present time is living and
• exercising his profession near Caaguazú.
  • - Jorge Alvarenga Galeano, who was born in Buenos Aires, was arrested on 22
• June 1983 opposite the Faculty of Engineering, for shouting slogans against
• the country, the Government and the authorities whilst meeting with a group of
• students who had been suspended by the rector of the National University. On 5
• July 1983 he was deported to Buenos Aires but re-entered Paraguay on 6
• February 1984 and left again on his own initiative on 10 February 1984 without
• any intervention by the Paraguayan authorities.
  • - In the América Textil undertaking a trade union requested recognition of its
• occupational status on 26 December 1979. The Labour Inspectorate observed that
• it did not have the number of members required by law since a large number of
• the applicants were in fact workers who had been dismissed or who had received
• advance notice of dismissal. Subsequently, no new steps have been taken with a
• view to its registration.
  • - With respect to the allegation concerning the FRISA SA undertaking, no
• information is available in the Labour Directorate concerning the threats of
• dismissal alleged by the complainant.
  15. 15 During the mission we were able to gather the following information on
• these various matters.
  16. 16 With regard to the alleged detention of Stella Rufinelli and four other
• persons following the establishment of the MSS, the authorities of the
• Ministry of Justice and Labour stated that these persons were free (in
• conformity with the information supplied by the Government representative to
  7. the 71st Session of the International Labour Conference), that they had been
• arrested during an investigation into the "Paraguayan Data Bank" affair and
• that they were never taken to court. We were informed that the "Paraguayan
• Data Bank" was an intelligence unit which acted as the headquarters for
• conspiratorial activities of a Marxist-Leninist nature. Under the cover of its
• supposed data processing activities, its real function was of a subversive
• nature.
  17. 17 As regards the alleged difficulties of the Union of Journalists of
• Paraguay (SPP) over the past four years to obtain legal personality, the
• authorities of the Ministry referred to the information supplied by the
• Government representative to the 71st Session of the International Labour
• Conference and stressed that this trade union had taken no new steps with a
• view to obtaining legal personality and that there was no legal impediment to
• the establishment of the trade union. We invited Mr. José Gaspar Meaurio, the
• current Secretary-General of the trade union, to a meeting to discuss these
• matters, but he did not attend. As regards the arrest and prosecution of Mr.
• Alcibiades González del Valle, leader of the Union of Journalists of Paraguay,
• the authorities of the Ministry pointed out that this person is free and
• freely exercising his professional activity at the present time. In the past
• he had been arrested on several occasions but never for trade union reasons.
• It should be noted that Mr. González del Valle, who is no longer the
• Secretary-General of the Union of Journalists of Paraguay, was invited to meet
• with the representative of the Director-General of the ILO but did not come.
  18. 18 As regards the arrest of Mr. Aldo Zuccolillo, Director of the newspaper
• ABC Color, for permitting publications on trade union events, the authorities
• of the Ministry pointed out that the reason for the arrest was not that given
• by the complainant but rather his systematic and abusive harassment of the
• Government. Furthermore, they emphasised that Mr. Zuccolillo had never allowed
• the establishment of any trade union in the undertakings of which he is the
• owner. Finally, they stated that trade union newspapers which published
• articles of a critical nature existed in the country and that such
• publications had never been the subject of any penalties or warnings.
  19. 19 As regards the arrest of Messrs. Carlos Cuevas and Jorge Alvarenga
• Galeano, the authorities of the Ministry stated that they were not trade
• unionists, that their detention was not related to trade union matters and
• that they were released without legal proceeding being brought against them.
  20. 20 As regards the alleged arbitrary dismissal of workers of the América
• Textil undertaking following the submission by the trade unions of a list of
• demands, the authorities of the Ministry stated that 27 workers were dismissed
• in December 1979. In January 1980 a works union requested recognition in the
• Ministry but this was refused since of its founding members only 12 were
• actually employed (the Labour Code stipulates a minimum number of 30). In any
• event, the dismissed workers accepted the legal indemnities. It should be
• noted that the América Textil undertaking refused to meet with the
• representative of the Director-General of the ILO.
  21. 21 As regards the allegations concerning the FRISA S.A. undertaking, the
• authorities of the Ministry stated that no undertaking existed with that name.
  22. 22 Finally, with respect to the closing down of the Ñandutí radio station,
• the authorities of the Ministry denied that the reason for this action was the
• transmission of messages from the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers in
• Exile. The radio station was closed for political reasons. They stated that in
• Paraguay radio stations are not closed down for giving news or messages of a
• trade union nature.
• Case No. 1275
  23. 23 This complaint was presented by the International Confederation of Free
• Trade Unions in a communication dated 17 April 1984. The Government sent
• certain observations in a communication dated 14 September 1984. The Committee
• on Freedom of Association examined the case, as noted earlier, at its meeting
• of November 1984, and made the following recommendations which summarise with
• sufficient clarity the matters which remained pending (see 236th report,
• paragraph 458):
  • (a) The Committee expresses the hope that the Labour Court will shortly decide
• the points of contention in connection with the renewal of the collective
• agreement between the Union of Employees of the Bank of Brazil and this same
• bank, which expired on 30 January 1983. It draws attention to the obligation
• on both employers and trade unions to bargain in good faith to reach an
• agreement and stresses that satisfactory labour relations depend primarily on
• the attitudes of the parties towards each other and on their mutual
• confidence. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the Labour
• Court's decision on this case.
  • (b) The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the
• judicial appeal concerning the dismissal of Messrs. Rolando Duarte, Adolfo
• Virgili y Guillermo and Guillermo Cáceres, members of the Union of Employees
• of the Bank of Brazil.
  24. 24 The Government had sent copies of certain documents concerning the alleged
• dismissals, but had not sent the text of the judgement. Neither had it sent
• the text of the judicial decision on the points of contention related to the
• renewal of the collective agreement.
  25. 25 During the mission we were able to gather the following information on
• these various matters.
  26. 26 The authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour provided the text of
• the decision of the Labour Appeal Court dated 27 December 1984 upholding the
• claims of the Union of Employees of the Bank of Brazil concerning the points
• of contention regarding the renewal of the collective agreement. The
• management of the Bank of Brazil and leaders of the Federation of Bank
• Employees pointed out that the Bank of Brazil and the trade union of this
• institution had recently signed a new collective agreement.
  27. 27 As regards the alleged dismissal of Messrs. Roland Duarte, Adolfo Virgili
• and Guillermo Cáceres, members of the Union of Employees of the Bank of
• Brazil, the leaders of the Federation of Bank Employees who were interviewed
• stated that these dismissals were illegal since they violated the provisions
• of section 285 of the Labour Code (maintenance of the employment relationship
• during the settlement of labour disputes procedure). They pointed out that
• although the undertaking claimed that the dismissals were made in order to
• reduce costs they were, in fact, due to trade union activities. Messrs.
• Virgili and Cáceres were very active members of the trade union and Mr. Roland
• Duarte was its former Deputy Secretary-General. Furthermore, if the argument
• concerning the reduction of costs were true, the Bank could have dismissed
• other persons since 20 workers were nearing retirement and their departure
• from the undertaking would not have prevented them from receiving their legal
• retirement benefits. In the same way, when the arbitration award was made
• concerning the points of contention in the new collective agreement, and which
• upheld the claims of the trade union, the undertaking dismissed two further
• members.
  28. 28 The management of the Bank of Brazil denied that the dismissal of Messrs.
• Duarte, Virgili and Cáceres was of an anti-trade union nature or related to
• collective bargaining. All the workers of the Bank were members of the trade
• union and the dismissed workers were not members of the executive board of the
• trade union. The dismissal of the workers in question was due to
• administrative reasons and not to a reduction in costs and the workers
• concerned received the compensation prescribed by law. Subsequent to these
• measures there was only one other dismissal, that of a worker in another
• branch of the Bank, and the departure from the undertaking of a secretary by
• mutual agreement. The secretary went to work in another banking institution.
  29. 29 The authorities of the Ministry stated that no definitive ruling had been
• issued concerning the dismissals and that the judiciary had indicated that
• such a ruling was imminent.
• Cases Nos. 1328 and 1301
  30. 30 It appears appropriate to treat these two cases together and in the
• above-mentioned order because of the close relationship which exists between
• specific aspects of these cases and a full understanding of the matters in
• question.
• Case No. 1328
  31. 31 The complaint appears in a communication from the Latin American Central
• of Workers (CLAT) dated 6 April 1985. The Government has still not furnished a
• reply.
  32. 32 The CLAT alleges in particular that the authorities have limited the right
• of the National Union of Building Workers (SINATRAC) to elect its
• representatives in full freedom.
  33. 33 More precisely, the CLAT alleges that the Labour Directorate stated in a
• communication of September 1984 that the extraordinary assembly held on 11
• March 1984 to replace the Secretary-General of SINATRAC, Mr. Milciades Giménez
• Díaz for failure to fulfil his duties, was null and void for procedural
• reasons. According to the complainant, the real reason for this measure was
• that the above-mentioned trade union leader supported the anti-trade union
• policy of the Government. CLAT encloses a copy of the communication from the
• Labour Directorate (dated 19 June 1984) in which it is stated that SINATRAC
• "should have justified previously that it had observed the provision of
• Article 6 of its by-laws. Thus the copy of the ABC newspaper presented
• contains only information of a journalistic nature which cannot be considered
• as the convocation of an assembly of its members which would have legal
• force".
  34. 34 CLAT adds that the ordinary general assembly of SINATRAC which had been
• called by the trade union executive for 14 October 1984 was suspended by the
• authorities. CLAT includes a copy of a communication from the Labour
• Directorate dated 31 October 1984 stating that those who called the assembly
• "were not accredited members of the trade union and thus are not empowered to
• call an assembly".
  35. 35 CLAT adds that the ordinary general assembly was then convened for 2l
• October 1984; it took place in normal conditions with the members of the union
• and presented in good time its request to the Labour Directorate for
• recognition of the executive committee. However, this request was rejected on
• the grounds that "an executive committee had already been recognised on the
• same date" when in fact - the complainant goes on - this had occurred without
• the convening of an assembly or the observance of any of the necessary
• requirements and within a period of 24 hours. As a consequence, a complaint
• was lodged which was not answered, thus preventing a discussion of the matter
• in other bodies, including in the courts (it should be noted that CLAT sends
• as an annexure a communication from the Labour Directorate which implicitly
• refers to the possibility of lodging an administrative appeal).
  36. 36 CLAT concludes by pointing out that the leader recognised by the
• authorities does not represent the working classes and has always acted like a
• vigilante against the interests of his trade union comrades.
  37. 37 In order to obtain information on this complaint, which basically deals
• with the rift which occurred in the executive committee of SINATRAC and its
• consequences, we consulted the representatives of both groups as well as the
• competent authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour.
  38. 38 We met with Messrs. Lino Gómez, Gregorio Ojeda and Melanio Morel, who
• stated that they were respectively Secretary-General, Assistant
• Secretary-General and Financial Secretary of SINATRAC. These persons belong to
• the group which presented the complaint to the ILO. They furnished us with
• various documents to support and supplement their oral statements.
  39. 39 According to the information provided, during the extraordinary assembly
  11. of 11 March 1984 the question was implicitly raised of unionising the workers
• of the Yaciretá dam and the private firm which was constructing the future
• plant of ACEPAR (Paraguayan Steelworks). All those present supported this
• action by the trade union although the Secretary-General, Mr. Melcíades
• Giménez Díaz, opposed it. The latter, having refused to read a document which
• was given to him concerning this matter, decided to leave the meeting
• accompanied by the Clerk, Mr. Sixto Fleitas. In the circumstances, the
• participants decided to elect Mr. Lino Gómez (who until then had been the
• Assistant Secretary-General) as the new Secretary-General. He was to exercise
• his mandate until the month of October 1984, when the term of the executive
• committee was due to expire. At the same time, the assembly reorganised the
• executive committee and sent the corresponding notice to the Labour
• Directorate with a view to obtaining recognition of this committee.
  40. 40 In reply, they were informed in a note of 19 June 1984 of the legal ruling
  7. of 7 June concerning the need to fulfil, before the holding of the assembly,
• the statutory regulations concerning the publication of the convocation in a
• newspaper. In a note of 3 July 1984, issued by the new executive committee, it
• was explained to the authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour that it
• had not been possible to publish the convocation due to lack of money but that
• the news item which had appeared in the ABC Color newspaper compensated for
• this shortcoming. Furthermore, approximately 80 members of the trade union out
• of a total of 120 had attended the assembly, which was well beyond the
• required quorum. Despite these explanations, the Labour Directorate issued a
• resolution dated 6 September 1984 which rejected the recognition of the
• executive committee and based its decision on the failure to observe the
• above-mentioned statutory provision.
  41. 41 In these circumstances, the complainants add, the failure to recognise
• this new Committee implied that the previous committee remained in existence.
• Seven members of this committee (out of a total of 11), including Messrs. Lino
• Gómez and Gregorio Ojeda, decided to convene an ordinary assembly of the trade
• union for 14 October 1984. This decision was communicated to the Ministry on
  26. 26 September and the convocation was published in a newspaper in accordance
• with the union's by-laws. In the same way notification was sent to the police
• which replied that the assembly would have to be postponed until 21 October.
• For its part, the Legal Department of the Labour Directorate decided that the
• applicants were not accredited members (of the executive committee) of the
• trade union, and thus could not convene the assembly. This decision was
• communicated to them on 31 October. The assembly took place on 21 October and
• recognition of the elected executive committee was requested in a note dated
  24. 24 October 1984. The competent authority of the Ministry replied by providing
• the text of another legal opinion which stated that, by Resolution No. 1717
• dated 17 October 1984, recognition had already been granted to another
• executive committee of the trade union and that for this reason the
• applicants' request could not be accepted.
  42. 42 According to the complainants, what had in fact happened was that without
• their knowledge, another assembly had been held on 13 October 1984 which had
• been called by the members of the original executive committee who had
• remained in a minority. In the extraordinarily short period of four days,
• which is unprecedented, this new committee was recognised whereas normally
• such a process requires more than one month. This would also explain the
• instructions from the police to postpone the date of the assembly from 14 to
  21. 21 October.
  43. 43 The complainants state that they have never been able to obtain a copy of
• the text of the formal resolution which rejects their request for recognition
• of the executive committee elected at the assembly of 21 October 1984. They
• have presented and verified before the Ministry the request for recognition of
• this executive committee and the request for the annulment of the recognition
• granted to the committee elected on 13 October 1984 (notes dated 28 November
  2. and 23 January 1985). In the note dated 28 November it is stated that the
     • so-called assembly of 13 October did not legally take place, that those who
  3. convened it did not have the power to do so, that they did not publish the
• convocation notice as required, that they did not have rosters available, were
• not up to date in their contributions and had not distrubuted circulars
• concerning the convocation.
  44. 44 In reply, the Ministry confirmed that the only legal recourse against the
• resolution to deny recognition in this case is the administrative procedure
• for disputes, in accordance with section 297 of the Labour Code (note dated 15
• February 1985). According to the complainants, the initiation of this
• procedure requires access to the text of the formal resolution which they have
• unsuccessfully requested.
  45. 45 At the meeting held with Mr. Milcíades Giménez Díaz, who claimed to be the
• Secretary-General of SINATRAC, he referred to various aspects of the assembly
  11. of 11 March 1984. First of all, the resignation presented in February by Mr.
• Gregorio Ojeda, who was a member of the executive committee elected in 1982,
• was accepted. During the same assembly Mr. Pedro Zárate also presented his
• resignation. During the discussions a written note of accusation against Mr.
• Gímenez was presented by the complainants requesting his resignation as
• Secretary-General. It was suggested that he should read this note publicly but
• Mr. Gímenez refused to do so since the matter was not included on the agenda
• of the assembly. The text of the agenda was shown to us by Mr. Gímenez; it
• reads as follows: "(1) Report and appraisal of the financial situation by the
• Secretary of Finances for the 1983 exercise. (2) Election of a Deputy
• Secretary of Records and Relations, a Deputy Secretary of Finance and a
• Secretary responsible for the organisation of activities. (3) Election of four
• substitute members." Those who were insistent that the note should should be
• read included in particular Mr. Carlos Castillo, former Secretary-General, who
• had ceased to be a member of the trade union following his failure to pay
• trade union dues.
  46. 46 As a result of the rising tempers of the persons present and the resulting
• confusion, Mr. Gímenez Díaz decided to withdraw from the assembly, accompanied
• by the Clerk and the two inspectors of the Ministry of Justice and Labour who
• had been invited by the executive committee. The two latter officials informed
• the members that the assembly was suspended and that any decision taken by
• those present would have no legal effect. Approximately 50 persons remained in
• the meeting out of a total of 61 participants. The membership of the trade
• union at that time was 120. In the meeting which continued it was not possible
• to adopt any decision respecting the election of a new Secretary-General and
• the reorganisaion of the executive committee since these items were not
• included on the agenda.
  47. 47 Furthermore, Mr. Gímenez continued, it cannot be said that seven members
• out of a total of 11 of the executive committee elected in 1982 had remained
• as members of one of the two factions. In fact two of the seven had resigned
• or abandoned their functions before the assembly of 11 March 1984 (Florencio
• Benítez, Secretary of Records and Relations, Eustaquio Portillo, Deputy
• Secretary of Finances). The following therefore remained as members of the
• dissident group: Lino Gómez, Gregorio Ojeda, Justo Pastor Sosa, Pedro Zárate
• and Martín Chamorro. In Mr. Gímenez Díaz's group there remained, in addition
• to the latter, Sixto Fleitas, Antonio de la Cruz Benítez and Efigenio
• Fernández. According to Mr. Gímenez, this proves that the dissidents did not
• have the support of the majority of the members of the original executive
• committee to convene a subsequent extraordinary assembly of the trade union.
  48. 48 After the division occurred, Mr. Gímenez Díaz adds, that the premises of
• SINATRAC - an office in the headquarters of the Paraguayan Confederation of
• Workers - continued to be occupied by his group, which continued its trade
• union activities. With a view to normalising the situation, it was decided to
• hold an assembly for the reorganisation of the trade union, which took place
• in Villa Hayes on 13 October 1984. This city was selected since most of the
• members were employed there in the construction of the future ACEPAR plant.
• More than 200 members participated in the assembly. Circulars announcing the
• convocation were pinned up and distributed at the worksite. The assembly
• elected a new executive committee of which Mr. Gímenez Díaz is the
• Secretary-General. This committee was recognised by the Ministry of Justice
• and Labour.
  49. 49 In our conversations with the competent authorities of this Ministry we
• received documentation and we were given the following information on the
• events which had occurred. It was stressed that the situation was a confused
• one concerning an internal dispute between the members of the executive
• committee of SINATRAC.
  50. 50 On 11 March 1984 an extraordinary general assembly convened by the
• executive committee was held in the headquarters of the Paraguayan
• Confederation of Workers to examine the financial balance sheet presented by
• the Financial Secretary and to fill certain vacant posts on the committee.
• After the approval of the balance sheet and as the chairman was introducing
• the second item on the agenda (appointment to vacant posts), a group headed by
• Carlos Castillo, Gregorio Ojeda and Pedro Zárate provoked the incidents in
• question, disregarding the warnings made by the labour inspectors to keep to
• the items on the agenda. As the situation deteriorated, the inspectors
• withdrew from the premises, as did the president and secretary of the meeting,
• and the delegates of the CPT.
  51. 51 Later the group directed by Carlos Castillo, Gregorio Ojeda and Pedro
• Zárate held a so-called extraordinary general assembly, set up a so-called
• executive committee and requested its recognition before the Labour
• Directorate. This request was denied by Resolution No. 1502 dated 6 September
  1984. 1984 Since that date the trade union had been without leadership. In these
• circumstances and with a view to the legal reorganisation of the trade union,
• a SINATRAC reorganisation committee was set up whose members were Milcíades
• Gímenez Díaz, Sixto Fleitas and Antonio de la Cruz Benítez, who had been
• members of the executive committee elected in January 1982. This
• reorganisation committee, with the collaboration of the CPT, called a general
• assembly on 1 October 1984 for the reorganisation of the trade union, to be
• held on 13 October in Villa Hayes. The convocation was not published in a
• newspaper for lack of money but notification was given in circulars, as
• verified by the labour inspectors. The assembly was monitored by officials of
• the Labour Directorate and proceeded to elect a new executive committee of the
• trade union which was duly recognised by the authorities by Resolution No.
  1717. 1717 dated 17 October 1985.
  52. 52 As regards certain specific points, the labour authorities provided the
• following information. The executive committee elected in the assembly of 11
• March 1984 was not recognised because it had not complied with the provisions
• of Article 6 of the SINATRAC by-laws, which read as follows: "The convocation
• of an assembly of members shall be communicated to members by means of
• circulars distributed at the workplaces and in the work committees and by
• publication in a newspaper of the capital at least eight days beforehand." As
• regards the request for recognition of the executive committee resulting from
• the assembly of 21 October 1984 and the annulment of the recognition granted
• to the committee elected at the assembly of 13 October 1984, the Labour
• Directorate considers that this is an appeal for annulment requiring the
• Directorate to annul a decision which it had previously taken. This kind of
• appeal is not applicable in such cases and is not included in any regulation
• for these purposes. What is applicable under the established procedure (Decree
  3. No. 3696 dated 24 March 1964) is a direct appeal to the courts through the
• administrative procedure for disputes. The Ministry of Justice and Labour
• communicated the legal decisions to which the complainants refer in the same
• way as resolutions against which appeals can be lodged through the
• administrative procedure for disputes. Furthermore, mention is made in one of
• these decisions of Resolution No. l7l7 which recognises the executive
• committee elected on 13 October 1984, which means that the complainants had
• been informed of the existence of this resolution and could have lodged an
• appeal through the adminstrative procedure for disputes.
  53. 53 Finally, the Labour Directorate stressed that it is not certain that
• Messrs. Ojeda, Zárate, Castillo and other complainants actually work in the
• building industry. On the other hand, it was clear from the work roster of the
• Benito Roggio and Sons SA., construction firm that Mr. Milciades Gimenez Diaz
• is an employee of this firm.
• Case No. 13O1
  54. 54 This complaint is contained in communications from the International
• Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 6 and 25 September 1984. The
• Government representative of Paraguay to the 7lst Session of the International
• Labour Conference personally delivered certain information concering this
• complaint.
  55. 55 In its communication dated 6 September 1985, the ICFTU alleges that on l8
• August 1984, when steps were being taken for the establishment of a trade
• union, Messrs. Melanio Morel, Gregorio Ojeda, Pedro Zárate, Carlos Castillo
• and Nicasio Guzmán, leaders of the National Union of Building Workers
• (SINATRAC) were arrested in the ACEPAR iron and steel works by military
• officials. In its communication of 25 September 1984, the ICFTU adds that
• these leaders were released on lO September, but that they have been dismissed
• on the express instructions of the Ministry of Justice and Labour.
  56. 56 The documentation presented by the Government representative of Paraguay
• to the 7lst Session of the International Labour Conference indicates that the
• persons mentioned by the ICFTU do not appear as members of SINATRAC, nor are
• they employed in any undertaking.
  57. 57 Information on this case was obtained from Messrs. Lino Gómez, Gregorio
• Ojeda and Melanio Morel, as well as from the competent authorities of the
• Ministry of Justice and Labour. It should be noted that the events occurred in
• August 1984, that is, after the executive committee of SINATRAC had split into
• two factions during the assembly of ll March of that year.
  58. 58 According to Messrs. Gómez, Ojeda and Morel, who were members of the
• executive committee elected at that assembly, as well as Pedro Zárate, their
• objective was to set up a works committee in the undertaking which was
• building the ACEPAR plant. A similar committee had previously been set up in
• the Yaciretá worksite. On l8 August 1984, they convened a assembly of workers
• in this plant which was to be held at the nearest bus stop to the plant. On
• that day, as they were preparing for the meeting, they were warned by the
• police that the meeting should not be held. Shortly afterwards they were
• arrested by members of the army and remained under arrest until 4 September
  1984. 1984 when they were released without any proceedings having been brought
• against them. They were not informed of the reason for their detention but
• were warned not to proceed further with their activities.
  59. 59 According to these interlocutors, they had organised works committees on
• previous occasions without having requested permission from the authorities.
• On such occasions the meetings had been held in the premises of the Paraguayan
• Confederation of Workers, which was impossible on this occasion because of the
• large number of interested workers (approximately, 2,7OO). They had believed
• that the ACEPAR plant, an undertaking which is directed by military staff, was
• not situated in a military zone and there was no information or notice
• indicating that it was. Finally, they stated that they were not dismissed as a
• result of these events because they were not recruited individually under
• separate contracts, but collectively as a team on the basis of labour-leasing
• contracts. What is certain that since their arrest they have not been able to
• obtain contracts with building undertakings as before but only with individual
• employers.
  6. 6O. According to the authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour, the
• ACEPAR undertaking is a para-public undertaking, located in a military zone
• and is directed by military staff. The assembly to which the complaints refer
• was not authorised and for this reason could not be held. As a result they
• were arrested by the military forces, without charges being brought against
• them, and subsequently released. The Ministry never intervened with a view to
• obtaining their possible dismissal. In point of fact the matter is a problem
• which should be examined in the context of the rivalry existing between the
• two trade union factions to which reference has been made, and the action
• carried out by the complainants was designed to obtain new supporters because
• of the forthcoming trade union elections.
• Case No. 1341
  61. 61 This complaint is contained in a communication from the ICFTU dated 24
• June 1985. The Government had not replied.
  62. 62 The ICFTU alleges that Paraguayan citizens who were offered the
• possibility of returning to their country after a long period of forced exile
• are being submitted to a strict control by the authorities. The complainant
• refers in particular to the case of Mr. Ricardo Esperanza Leiva, former trade
• union leader who returned to the country after many years of exile and who has
• since been the victim of thorough and constant police supervision in Asunción,
• including supervision by motorised police whenever he travels to any part of
• the city.
  63. 63 The ICFTU states that this type of government measure severely limits the
• individual and trade union freedoms of Mr. Esperanza Leiva and even prevents
• him from seeking work, which is an indispensable condition to be able to live
• and to remain the the country.
  64. 64 Finally, the ICFTU requests that steps be taken with a view to the
• definitive lifting by the Government of the restrictions affecting exiled
• citizens who have returned to the country, in particular, Mr. Esperanza Leiva.
  65. 65 During the mission we were able to gather the following information on
• this case.
  66. 66 Mr. Ricardo Esperanza Leiva stated that under the pretext of guaranteeing
• his personal safety he was the victim of constant supervision by the police
• who followed him on motor cycles whenever he moved from one place to another.
• We were able to confirm the presence of a police motor cycle opposite the
• place where we met with Mr. Leiva. According to the latter, the fact that he
• is followed everywhere by the police, who also request documentation from
• those persons with whom he has contact, makes it impossible for him to find
• work, earn his living and therefore makes it difficult for him to remain in
• the country. Mr. Leiva said that he had been in exile since 1959, that he was
• sentenced to four years of prison in 1961 when he clandestinely entered the
• country and joined the Epifanismo political movement. He also pointed out that
• he was a member of the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers in Exile, acting as
• its Deputy Secretary-General, and that he had been a leader of the Frigorífico
• Liebig trade union.
  67. 67 The authorities of the Ministry stated that the police surveillance of Mr.
• Leiva was designed to guarantee his safety and protect his life, since he had
• been a member of the Epifanismo movement, which is a specific, dissident
• sector of the Colorado Party headed in 1954 by Epifanio Méndez Fleitas, Chief
• of Police responsible for a number of atrocities. The authorities of the
• Ministry also pointed out that Mr. Leiva could present his problem to the
• Ministry of Labour and that other trade unionists in exile had returned to the
• country and were now working.
  68. 68 During the meeting with the Minister of Justice and Labour I expressed the
• concern felt at the international level and, in particular, within the ILO at
• the situation of Mr. Leiva and requested that this situation should be made
• known to the Minister of the Interior.
• Geraldo von Potobsky.
• PERSONS INTERVIEWED
• Ministry of Justice and Labour
• Mr. Eugenio Jacquet, Minister of Justice and Labour
• Mr. Carlos Doldán del Puerto, Director of Labour
• Mr. Luciano Mendoza, Chief of the Department of International Standards
• Mr. Arsenio Riveros Delgado, Deputy Adviser of the Legal Department of the
• Labour Directorate
• Mrs. Ilse de Riveros, Regional Director of the Department of Itapúa, Social
• Information Branch
• Paraguayan Confederation of Workers in Exile (CPTE)
• Mr. Julio Etcheverry Espinola, Secretary-General of the CPTE
• Mr. Basilio González Hermosilla, Secretary-General of the CPTE
• Mr. Pablo E. Aquino, Secretary of International Relations, CPTE
• Mr. Eulogio Alvarenga, Secretary responsible for Peasant Affairs, CPTE
• Mr. Julián Garay, Secretary responsible for Organisation, CPTE
• Mr. Carlos L. Garay González, Secretary responsible for Youth Affairs, CPTE
• Mr. Ricardo Esperanza Leiva, Deputy Secretary-General, CPTE (interviewed in
• Asunción)
• Mr. Marcelino Notario Bernal, Secretary responsible for Organisation, CPTE
• (interviewed in Asunción)
• Paraguayan Confederation of Workers (CPT)
• Mr. Sotero Ledesma, Secretary-General of the CPT
• Mr. Porfirio Giménez, Secretary of Records and Correspondence, CPT
• Mr. Salvador Vera, Secretary of International Affairs, CPT
• Mr. Enrique Benítez, Secretary of Culture and Trade Union Education, CPT
• Various other leaders of the CPT.
• Federation of Production, Industry and Commerce (FEPRINCO) and the Paraguayan
• Industrial Union
• Mr. Alirio W. Ugarte Díaz, Presdent of FEPRINCO and other members of the
• executive committee
• Mr. Gustavo Díaz de Vivar, Representative of the Paraguayan Industrial Union
• National Union of Building Workers (SINATRAC)
• Mr. Milcíades Giménez Diaz, Secretary-General of SINATRAC (executive committee
• recognised by the Ministry of Justice and Labour)
• Mr. Lino Gómez, Secretary-General of SINATRAC
• Mr. Gregorio Ojeda, Assistant Secretary-General of SINATRAC
• Mr. Melanio Morel, Financial Secretary of SINATRAC
• Federation of Bank Employees (FETRABAN)
• Mr. Víctor Báez Mosquera, Secretary-General of FETRABAN
• Mr. Humberto Ayala, Secretary of Organisation of FETRABAN
• Mr. Carlos Veron, Secretary of Relations of FETRABAN
• Mr. Víctor Manuel Rodríguez, Press Secretary of the Trade Union of the Banco
• de Brasil and Adviser to the Executive Committee of FETRABAN
• Inter-Trade Union Movement of Workers (MIT-Paraguay)
• Mr. José Martínez, Organisation and Action Committee of the Inter-Trade Union
• Movement of Workers (MIT) Paraguay)
• Mr. Gustavo Benítez, Legal Adviser of MIT and the National Co-ordinating
• Committee of Workers
• Others
• Mr. Hugo Roberto Cabrera Alemán, Under-Manager of the Banco de Brasil
• Mr. Panulfo Jara Casco, President of Línea de Autobuses 21