Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 93, 1967

1. 114. This case was examined previously by the Committee at its sessions in May 1965, November 1965 and May 1966, when it submitted interim reports which appear in paragraphs 278 to 304 of its 83rd Report, 492 to 503 of its 85th Report and 220 to 233 of its 90th Report, approved respectively by the Governing Body at its 162nd, 163rd and 165th Sessions (May-June 1965, November 1965 and May 1966).
2. 115. In those reports the Committee submitted its final conclusions with respect to some of the allegations made by the complainants, part of which refer to proceedings against trade union officers in connection with the approval and execution of a " Battle Plan " on the part of the General Confederation of Labour (C.G.T.) in 1963.
3. 116. However, in paragraph 232 of its 90th Report, the Committee asked the Government to inform it of the exact nature of the offences with which two trade unionists, Mr. Felipe Ernesto Ludueña and Mr. Carlos Kristoff, were charged, these persons having been mentioned in a communication from the Government dated 14 March 1966. The Committee's request was conveyed to the Government by a letter dated 8 June 1966, and the latter's observations were notified to the I.L.O by a communication dated 12 September 1966 from the Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic in Geneva.
4. 117. Argentina 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. 118. The Government states that Mr. Felipe Ernesto Ludueña was arrested on the public thoroughfare on 10 March 1965, being found to have in his possession four sticks of gelignite and two lead detonators. The arrest took place in the presence of three witnesses, who signed the police report of confiscation and later testified in court. The judge of the criminal court of the first instance issued an indictment under sections 212 and 213bis of the Penal Code, but the case was suspended on 30 April 1965 and Mr. Ludueña was released the same day. As regards Mr. Kristoff the Government states that as a result of a dispute in the plumbers' union various occurrences took place which made it necessary for the police to intervene. Several persons, whose names are supplied by the Government, were brought before courts of summary jurisdiction or criminal courts on charges such as violation of freedom to work, causing bodily injury, damaging the mains of a building in construction and the discovery of eight sticks of gelignite, a detonator and a fuse on trade union premises. In one of these trials, which began on 22 September 1965, Mr. Kristoff and others were charged with violation of freedom to work and causing bodily injury. In the case against Mr. Kristoff who, according to the Government, already has a police record and has previously been tried for anarchical and terrorist activities, a suspension was ordered on 9 November 1965 and confirmed by the Appeals Court.
2. 119. The Government states that the proceedings against Mr. Ludueña and Mr. Kristoff have no relation whatsoever to the detention of trade union leaders in connection with C.G.T's " Battle Plan ".

120. The Committee observes that the Government has provided sufficiently detailed information concerning the offences with which the above-mentioned persons were charged. Since the latter have been released as a result of the suspensions ordered by the ordinary courts and since the acts imputed to Mr. Ludueña and Mr. Kristoff do not seem to be connected with the allegations made in the complaint, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that it would be purposeless to pursue further its examination of this aspect of the case.