Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 142, 1974

68. The Latin American Confederation of Christian Trade Unions submitted a complaint on 13 August 1969 with the backing of the World Confederation of Labour (communication dated 25 August of that year). It was alleged that on 1 August 1969, Angel Riveros, Secretary-General of the Confederation of Christian Workers and President of the Regional Federation of Christian Agricultural Leagues of the Department of Caaguazú, together with Juan Félix Martinez, Organisational Secretary of the Christian Peasant Federation of Paraguay, had been arrested.

1. 68. The Latin American Confederation of Christian Trade Unions submitted a complaint on 13 August 1969 with the backing of the World Confederation of Labour (communication dated 25 August of that year). It was alleged that on 1 August 1969, Angel Riveros, Secretary-General of the Confederation of Christian Workers and President of the Regional Federation of Christian Agricultural Leagues of the Department of Caaguazú, together with Juan Félix Martinez, Organisational Secretary of the Christian Peasant Federation of Paraguay, had been arrested.
2. 69. On 26 February 1970, the World Confederation of Labour submitted a fresh allegation to the effect that Agripino Silva, a young Paraguayan trade unionist, responsible for the workers' education activities of the Confederation of Christian Workers, had been arrested on 25 January of that year. In another communication dated 24 March 1971, the World Confederation of Labour affirmed that Efigenio Fernández, General Secretary of the Confederation of Christian Workers, had been arrested on 7 March 1971.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 70. In a communication sent on 11 February 1970, the Government said, with reference to Angel Riveros and Juan Félix Martinez, that the names of the supposed leaders of the Confederation of Christian Workers appeared on the police records of the Departmental Authorities of Caaguazú, where they were arrested on 2 July 1969 and released on 17 July 1969. It added that the arrests did not result from trade union activities but from action involving breaches of law and order. Furthermore, the Paraguayan Ministry of Justice and Labour had no knowledge of the existence of the trade union offices supposedly held by the complainants, or of the alleged trade union organisations they claimed to represent.
2. 71. At its meeting in May 1970, the Committee decided to ask the Government to comment on the specific charges brought against Riveros and Martinez, and to say whether they had been brought to justice. The Government was also asked to comment on the alleged detention of Agripino Silva and to indicate what his position was in the eyes of the law.
3. 72. The Government having failed to reply although repeatedly invited to supply comments and information, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, as well as to provide information about the allegation concerning Efigenio Fernández, the Committee made an urgent appeal at its meeting in November 1971. No answer having been received, it informed the Government, at its meeting in February 1972, that under the procedure in force, the Committee was entitled to submit a report on the substance of the matter at its next session, even if the information asked for had not been received. Since this information was still not forthcoming, the Committee submitted its report to the Governing Body at its 186th Session (2-3 June 1972). Paragraphs 93 to 103 of the Committee's 131st Report (approved by the Governing Body at that session) discuss the allegations and contain the Committee's recommendations.
4. 73. In accordance with those recommendations, the Governing Body recalled that as far as the arrest of trade unionists was concerned, in a number of cases where the complainants alleged that trade union leaders or workers had been arrested for trade union activities, and the governments' replies amounted to general denials of the allegation or were simply to the effect that the arrests had been made for subversive activities, for reasons of internal security or for crimes under ordinary law, the Committee followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to submit further information, as precise as possible, about the arrests and the reasons for them, adding that if in certain cases the Committee had reached the conclusion that allegations relating to measures taken against trade unionists did not call for further examination, this was only after it had received sufficient information from the governments showing sufficiently precisely and with sufficient detail that the measures had in no way been occasioned by trade union activities, but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere, which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature.
5. 74. The Governing Body also deplored the fact that despite reiterated appeals, the Government had not provided the information requested about the serious allegations made by the complainants, thus preventing the Committee from reaching its conclusions in full knowledge of the facts.
6. 75. Lastly, the Governing Body asked the Director-General to make suitable approaches to the Government with a view to obtaining the information sought with regard to the trade unionists in question.
7. 76. Accordingly, the Director-General made repeated attempts to secure this information, while the Committee itself made further pressing appeals to the Government with the same end in view.
8. 77. Finally, the Government wrote on 27 December 1973 to say that although the persons mentioned were not registered as trade union leaders with the Ministry of Justice and Labour, Angel Riveros and Juan Félix Martinez had been arrested on 2 July 1969 and released on 17 July of that year; Agripino Silva had been arrested on 25 January 1970 and released on 4 February 1970; and Efigenio Fernández, arrested on 11 March 1971, had been released on 19 March 1971. All these men, according to the Government, had been arrested for breaches of the peace.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 78. The Committee takes due note of this communication, though it regrets that the Government has failed to provide detailed information about the specific charges brought against these persons, to enable it to reach its conclusions with an adequate knowledge of the facts.