Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 71, 1963

1. 48. The complaint by the Christian Trade Union Movement of Peru is contained in a telegram sent directly to the Director-General of the I.L.O and dated 5 March 1963. It was communicated to the Government, for observations, by letter of 25 March. The Government replied by letter of 4 May. The complainants, who were informed by letter, also dated 25 March 1963, of their right to submit further information in support of their complaint, have not made use of this right.
2. 49. Peru 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. 50. The Christian Trade Union Movement of Peru alleges that the public authorities of Puno infringed freedom of association in connection with the holding of the Second Congress of Peasants (6 to 9 March 1963).
2. 51. In its communication of 4 May 1963 the Government states that it at all times respects Constitutional freedoms and safeguards; that among these, freedom of assembly, in particular, is respected throughout the national territory without any restriction; that this is evidenced by the meetings of a social, trade union and professional character, of many kinds and in many places, which are held from day to day and enjoy not only safeguards from the Government but also its warm appreciation, as in the case of the Second Congress of Peasants of the province of Puno. The Government concludes by asserting that no action whatever was taken against the said Congress; that owing to the distance between Lima and Puno there was some delay before the central authorities were informed of the holding of the Congress; but that as soon as they were aware of it (on the very day of its opening) instructions were given by radio and telephone to the province of Puno authorising the Congress and affording it the full protection of the law.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 52. The Committee observes that the complainants' apprehension with regard to the effective holding of the Second Congress of Peasants of the province of Puno appears to have been unfounded, since on the one hand they have not sent any additional information or evidence in support of their complaint and on the other hand the Government states (in its letter of 4 May 1963) that the Congress was held without any opposition on its part, and that as soon as it was aware of the arrangements which had been made it sent instructions to the province of Puno authorising the Congress, to which the full protection of the law was to be afforded.