Definitive Report - Report No 19, 1956

Case No 92 (Peru) - Complaint date: 01-JUN-53 - Closed

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Complaint of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions
  16. 16 The complainant alleges that Mr. Rafael Lovett, General Secretary of the Peruvian Textile Workers' Federation, and Mr. Lucio Sandoval, were arrested by the police in Lima shortly after their return home from a meeting of the I.L.O Textile Committee held in Geneva, in which they had taken part as members of the Workers' group. They were accused by the Government, together with several other trade union leaders, of having taken part in a " plot against the Government ". In fact, it was not a question of a plot but simply of a strike called in the Arequipa textile industry.
  17. 17 The Textile Workers' Federation, which is affiliated to the Peruvian Workers' Confederation, published a statement denying that the strike had any political character and denied the allegations that the Federation was connected with a political party or carried on political activities.
  18. 18 The complainant considers that the arrest of workers' delegates on their return from an I.L.O meeting constitutes a grievous violation of trade union rights which directly impugns the authority of the International Labour Organisation. The complainant therefore requests the I.L.O to intervene in this matter with a view to securing the liberation of the persons imprisoned.
• Complaint of the Peruvian Textile Workers' Federation
  19. 19 By a communication addressed to the I.L.O, Messrs. Rafael Lovett Tapia and Lucio Sandoval Maurique, respectively General Secretary and Organising Secretary of the Peruvian Textile Workers' Federation, allege that on 21 February 1953, on the day of their return from the Fourth Session of the I.L.O Textiles Committee, they were arrested and imprisoned in the Central Prison in Lima until 15 April, on which date they were expelled from the country into the territory of Argentina.
  20. 20 These measures were taken arbitrarily and totally unjustly since no proceedings were instituted according to law and the accused were not allowed to know the details of the accusation nor to prepare their defence.
  21. 21 The complainants further indicate that, in their capacity as trade union leaders who always confined their activities to those of a strictly trade union character, they demanded of the competent authorities the revocation of the measures taken against them. They now call upon the Governing Body to intervene with the Peruvian Government in support of their demand.
• ANALYSIS OF THE REPLIES
• Analysis of the Government's First Reply (26 January 1954)
  22. 22 In its reply dated 26 January 1954 the Peruvian Government stated that the competent authorities to which the complaints had been transmitted informed it, after having made a thorough inquiry, that the persons mentioned in the complaints, who are Peruvian trade union leaders, carried on Communist activities in Peru. The police measures taken against them were necessary in order to ensure the security of the country. They were taken in conformity with the policy of co-operation in the fight against communism on the American continent.
• Previous Decisions of the Committee
  23. 23 At its 11th Session (February 1955), as at earlier sessions, the Committee decided to postpone its examination of the case and to request the Director-General to ask the Peruvian Government for further information concerning the reasons for the measures taken against Messrs. Lovett and Sandoval and the procedure followed with respect to their deportation.
• Analysis of the Government's Second Reply (15 February 1955)
  24. 24 In its second reply the Government expresses the view that the information which it has already given should have been considered sufficiently explicit by the Committee. It declares again that the Peruvian authorities possess formal proof showing that Messrs. Rafael Lovett and Lucio Sandoval took part in political activities distinct from their trade union activities and committed acts calculated to disturb public order and to endanger the external safety of the country. The Government states that the nature of the information assembled and the means by which it was possible for it to be obtained are matters connected with the protection of national security and cannot, therefore, be divulged.
  25. 25 Since the despatch of this second reply the Peruvian Government, in a telegram dated 25 September 1955, has informed the Director-General of its decision to authorise Mr. Lucio Sandoval to return to his country and that Mr. Rafael Lovett's case is being considered.
• Previous Decision of the Committee (13th Session)
  26. 26 At its 13th Session (November 1955), the Committee decided to adjourn its further examination of the case until its next session, pending the receipt of information as to the decision to be taken by the Government with respect to Mr. Rafael Lovett.
• Analysis of the Government's Third Reply (16 February 1956)
  27. 27 By a communication dated 16 February 1956 the Government of Peru informed the Director-General that Mr. Rafael Lovett, also, had been authorised to return to his country.
• INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE PERUVIAN CONFEDERATION OF LABOUR
  28. 28 By a telegram dated 26 May 1956 the Peruvian Confederation of Labour informed the Director-General that it had reconstituted itself, that its second national Congress had appointed delegates to attend the 39th Session of the International Labour Conference and that Messrs. Lovett and Sandoval had returned to Peru and resumed their trade union activities.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 29. In support of the allegations that the arrest of Messrs. Rafael Lovett and Lucio Sandoval constituted a violation of trade union rights, the first complainant states that the case in point deals with the arrest of two Peruvian trade union leaders who took part in a session of an I.L.O Industrial Committee as members of the Workers' group, and that their arrest on their return from Geneva was actually occasioned by a strike called in the textile industry at Arequipa. The alleged political character of this strike has been denied by the Peruvian Workers' Confederation.
2. 30. The second complainant adds that the arrest and expulsion from the country of Mesrs. Lovett and Sandoval were made without any proceedings being taken according to law and without allowing the accused to defend themselves.
3. 31. In its first reply the Government merely emphasised that the measures taken against these persons, whose status as trade union leaders it does not question, were taken in view of their Communist activities, which came to light in the course of a thorough inquiry. The purpose of the measures complained against, according to the Government, was to safeguard the security of the country and they were taken in accordance with the policy of co-operation in the fight against communism on the American continent.
4. 32. At its Eighth Session the Committee noted that the Government, while emphasising that a thorough inquiry had been made, did not give any details as to the facts which caused it to take the measures mentioned in the complaints against certain trade union leaders or as to the procedure followed in the application of these measures. Since the complaints were sufficiently detailed and the Government did not question either the fact that measures were taken or the status as trade union leaders of the persons concerned, the Committee considered that, before taking a decision on the case, it was desirable to obtain further details as to the circumstances in which these measures were taken and as to the procedure according to which they were put into application.
5. 33. In its second reply the Government stated that it possessed irrefutable proof that the trade union leaders in question took part in political activities which were entirely distinct from their trade union activities and were calculated to endanger the external safety of the country. The Government declared that this very fact obliged it not to divulge the information which enabled it to establish the guilt of the persons concerned. In this connection it stated in its reply that " the nature of the information and the methods of obtaining it pertain to the system of protection of national security which cannot be communicated to any government, as thereby the national security which is to be protected may be endangered, and the methods used to preserve internal order, which are in many cases tied up with international peace, may not be made known ".
6. 34. After the despatch of this second reply the Peruvian Government, by a telegram dated 25 September 1955, informed the Director-General that it had decided to authorise Mr. Lucio Sandoval to return to his country and that it was considering the case of Mr. Rafael Lovett.
7. 35. At its 13th Session (November 1955) the Committee decided to adjourn its further examination of the case until its present session, pending the receipt of information as to the decision to be taken by the Peruvian Government with respect to Mr. Rafael Lovett.
8. 36. By a communication dated 16 January 1956 the Government informed the Director-General that Mr. Rafael Lovett, also, had been authorised to return to his country. By a telegram dated 26 May 1956 the Peruvian Confederation of Labour informed the Director-General that Messrs. Lovett and Sandoval had returned to Peru and resumed their trade union activities.
9. 37. In these circumstances, while regretting the action taken by the Peruvian Government, the delay which occurred in authorising the return of Messrs. Sandoval and Lovett to Peru and the fact that the Government has not considered it possible to furnish the information requested by it, the Committee notes that the measure banning Messrs. Sandoval and Lovett has been revoked and that they have now returned to Peru and resumed their trade union activities.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 38. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the complaint has become purposeless and recommends the Governing Body to decide that it does not call for further examination.