Interim Report - Report No 114, 1970

Case No 604 (Uruguay) - Complaint date: 18-JUL-69 - Closed

1. 252. The complaints and the additional information submitted by the complainants are contained in two communications from the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), dated 18 July and 25 August 1969; two communications from the UTE Employees' Union, dated 22 July and 21 August 1969; a communication from the Trade Unions International of Workers of the Building, Wood and Building Materials Industries, dated 4 August 1969, a communication from the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), dated 18 August 1969, and a communication from the World Federation of Teachers' Unions, dated 10 October 1969.
2. 253. The texts of the above-mentioned communications were forwarded to the Government of Uruguay, each as it was received, and the Government submitted its observations in four communications, dated 20 August, 17 September, 16 and 28 October 1969.
3. 254. Uruguay 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

• Allegations concerning the Mobilisation and Arrest of Workers and Trade Union Leaders in 1969
  255. 255 In its communication of 18 August 1969, the World Confederation of Labour makes " a complaint and a vigorous protest " against the Government of Uruguay for alleged violation of freedom of association and other elementary human rights. The Confederation states that " thousands of workers and trade unionists have been arrested, ill-treated and banished far from their families, trade union organisations and their officials are the subject of unjust prosecution, and officials are arbitrarily imprisoned ".
  256. 256 An annex to the above-mentioned communication contains allegations which may be summarised as follows. On 24 June 1969 the Government ordered the arrest of 4,000 trade union and student leaders, including leaders at every level, from the national to that of the individual undertaking or office, and persons associated with all the political parties in existence in the country. About 1,000 prisoners, including Mr. José d'Elia, President of the National Labour Congress (CNT), were interned in barracks or on an island in the Rio de la Plata. The remaining 3,000 persons were persecuted; the climate of repression was such that the soldiers and police were publicly ordered to open fire on any person who approached a substation of the electric power system in a suspicious manner.
  257. 257 In one particular paragraph (paragraph 4) of the above-mentioned annex, it is alleged that three textile workers were savagely beaten, two of them by the police and the other by " Fascists in plain clothes ". The beatings took place even before the introduction, on 24 June, of the "emergency security measures" which are "equivalent to a state of siege with the suspension of Constitutional guarantees for the human person and for trade unions ".
  258. 258 According to the document under consideration, the pretext invoked for the adoption of the emergency security measures was the obvious unrest of the workers, in both the public and the private sectors, consequent upon the wage freeze which began in June 1968, and the dismissal of certain trade union officials. In January 1968 the Government announced that wages should be the same in both the private and the public sectors. Only six days before the expiration of the period prescribed by the Constitution for the adjustment of wages, the Government still remained silent, in spite of the fact that the Constitution provides for the setting up of bodies for the different sectors, on which the workers must be represented, for the examination of these questions. The Government " maintained an unreasonable silence as to the rates of pay it was to fix for 1970, and seized on the pretext of the justifiable protests of the employees to unleash a new wave of repression ", which began with the closing down of a newspaper. A further violation of the Constitution is said to have occurred when the Government ordered, without martial law having been imposed, the mobilisation of civilians; this applied to all workers in power stations and the telephone service, telecommunications, the refining and distribution of petroleum, and water supply and waste water disposal services.
  259. 259 The staff of the electricity and telephone services, the WCL continues, went on strike against the illegal mobilisation, and it was for this reason that a number of workers were unjustifiably imprisoned. At the beginning of the strike, several hundred more workers were arrested, who were compelled to stand in the street from 6 o'clock in the morning of 26 June until 8 o'clock in the evening. Workers who showed their support for the strike, in spite of having been arrested, were savagely beaten; those treated in this way included the trade union officials Medina, Román and Podilla. The beatings were carried out on the order of the military commander. When the staff of the electric power stations went on strike, they continued to supply sanatoria, hospitals and other medical care establishments with electricity; it is alleged, however, that after the staff had been expelled by the armed forces, the supply of electricity to sanatoria and hospitals was cut off, so that the trade union organisation could be accused of this act.
  260. 260 The WCL also states that " a campaign of calumny has been unleashed against the persecuted trade union officials. All the channels of communication of the trade unions have been blocked, and the headquarters of the CNT (the National Labour Congress) and that of the State Telephone Services (UTE) Employees' Union closed down. The closing down of other trade union premises has been announced and all meetings are prohibited."
  261. 261 The communication of the WCL of 25 August 1969 is based essentially on information received from the National Labour Congress, according to which the officials of this organisation have to remain in hiding and carry out their duties in a clandestine manner. It is also stated that members of families of trade union officials have been arrested when the latter were not found at their homes, and that trade union detainees have been compelled to carry out forced labour. These detainees were compelled to work, at a naval base, " in water up to their waists".
  262. 262 The communications of the UTE Employees' Union of 22 July and 21 August 1969 contain a series of allegations concerning the actions taken against the power station workers. It is alleged that the strikers reduced the power generated by only 50 per cent, thus ensuring the continuation of the services considered essential to the life and safety of the population, but that the Government ordered the entry of the police and of naval units. The complainants give details of the acts of violence said to have been carried out against the workers, and state that hundreds of workers were arrested and transferred to military bases. The trade union organisations called off the strike on 30 June, with a view to requesting an investigation of these events by Parliament, but the violence continued; the workers remained under arrest, many of them in solitary confinement, badly treated and humiliated. It is alleged that militant trade unionists were tortured by the police in order to make them confess to " acts of sabotage that have never occurred ".
  263. 263 According to the UTE Employees' Union, ten days after the strike had been called off, fifty-six workers were dismissed, including all the members of the Managing Committee and a high proportion of the delegates to the national congress of the trade union organisation.
  264. 264 It is alleged that trade union rights have been violated, since the Board of Control of the UTE, since its appointment on 28 June 1968, has systematically attacked the trade union organisation, which has 11,000 members out of a total of 14,000 workers. The union has never been received by the Board, and no answer has ever been made to any of its memoranda or complaints. The collection of union dues has been stopped, in spite of the fact that it is legally authorised, and the Board, according to the complaint, has improperly seized the dues for the month of June 1968. It is alleged that trade union privileges have been violated, in that, in addition to the fifty-six workers dismissed in July 1969, other members of the Managing Committee, members of the National Delegates' Congress and active trade unionists had been dismissed or suspended before that date. Finally, the UTE Employees' Union alleges that " the exercise of the right to strike has been prevented by physical violence and terror ". The complainants claim that, for more than a year, the workers have been unsuccessfully seeking to have the problems discussed; the conflict was set off by the authorities themselves, who mobilised the workers and arrested their leaders and delegates.
  265. 265 The complaint of the Trade Unions International of Workers of the Building, Wood and Building Materials Industries of 4 August 1969 refers particularly to the arrest of the following leaders of the Sole National Union of Construction and Affiliated Workers: Luis A. Trombeta, Social Security Secretary; Artigas Gómez, Organising Secretary; Ariel Mederos, Propaganda Secretary; Hugo Castro, Deputy Secretary-General; Ricardo Mario Acosta, Secretary-General of the Union in question and member of the Administrative Committee of the complainant organisation.
  266. 266 The complaint of the World Federation of Trade Unions of 18 August 1969 refers in general terms to the trade union situation as a whole and to what it claims to be the intention of the Government to exert pressure on the trade union organisations in order to prevent them from exercising their rights. When it is considered that the emergency security measures introduced by the Government in 1968 and 1969 were not justified, since the workers had merely put forward demands for higher wages, the unfreezing of wages and greater freedom of association, it can be seen, according to the complainant organisation, how seriously the very existence of the Uruguayan trade union movement is threatened. The WFTU protests against the measures taken by the Government, which, in its opinion, are aimed at converting the emergency security measures into the normal method for the settlement of industrial disputes.
  267. 267 The WFTU points out that, when a previous case was considered by the Committee, the Government had given the Committee to understand that the measures concerned only the employees and workers of the public sector (110th Report of the Committee, paragraph 217). This time, the violation of trade union rights has also affected workers in the private sector, " who were mobilised in July and have remained subject to military law from that time onwards ". This applies, in particular, to the bank employees, who went on strike for higher pay.
  268. 268 The WFTU requests not only that the violation of trade union liberties which it denounces should cease, but also that the following arrested trade union leaders should be released: José d'Elia, President of the CNT; Juan Angel Toledo, Secretary of the Textile Workers' Federation and an official of the CNT; Humberto Rodriguez, President of the Sole Union of the National Port Administration; Alejandro Constanzo, an official of the Confederation of State Officials; Tita Cogo, an official of the Seamstresses' Union; Alcides Lanza, an official of the Federation of Commercial Employees; Mario Acosta, Secretary-General of the Building Workers' Union; Eduardo Platero, Secretary-General of the Municipal Workers' and Employees' Union.
  269. 269 In its communication of 10 October 1969, the World Federation of Teachers' Unions mentions, in particular, the names of various teachers' trade union leaders who have been arrested.
  270. 270 In its communication of 20 August 1969, in reply to the complaint of the WCL of 18 July, the Government stated that it would, as soon as possible, answer all the allegations contained in that document, which it considers to be false and slanderous. In the meantime, the Government pointed out that, unfortunately, in June 1969, " faced with a most serious internal situation, the result of open subversion, terrorism and violence unleashed against society and democratic law and order ", it was necessary to resort to the introduction of the emergency security measures provided for in the Constitution.
  271. 271 The Government refers to the observations which it has already submitted to the Committee concerning the Constitutional provisions in question, In addition, the Government states that terrorism, subversion, and the advocacy and practice of violence which it has been necessary to repress in Uruguay do not constitute a problem of labour relations at all. The intention has openly and clearly been to destroy the Constitution and democracy by violence and all other possible means. In Uruguay the Constitution remains in force unchanged, politics are freely and vigorously carried on, and Parliament, which has the power to order at any time that all the security measures shall cease, is functioning normally. An independent judiciary is responsible for ensuring that the Constitution and the law are observed.
  272. 272 According to the Government, the complainants have seriously distorted the truth in explaining the reasons for the security measures. The Government submits the text of the decree in question, namely that of 24 June 1969, in which reference is made to the irregular functioning of the administration as a result of stoppages and strikes by civil servants and the threat of further trade union action. In the Government's view, on this occasion, in addition to circumstances analogous to those of 1968, there was also " co-ordinated action by the workers in both the public and private sectors aimed at bringing the country to a complete standstill ". The National Association of Civil Servants ordered a 72-hour strike; the National Congress of Workers (which also includes workers in the private sector) ordered a strike starting on 24 June; the Association of Public Health Workers ordered the occupation of the working premises. Reference is also made to the sit-down strike of the post office workers, to the interruption of certain railway services, to the adoption of working to rule in private banks, to stoppages in the municipal services, to the occupation of schools and the premises of certain privately owned industries and autonomous public agencies and, in addition, to the atmosphere of violence in the streets. The repeal of the security measures adopted in 1968 did not result, as was hoped, in the development of a climate of good will.
  273. 273 The decree prohibits all spoken or written propaganda in favour of stoppages or strikes (section 1); prohibits meetings in connection with such activities and orders the closing down of premises in which it is intended to hold them (section 2); authorises the application, when necessary, of the provisions laid down in subsection 17 of section 168 of the Constitution (so far as they are concerned with the arrest or transfer of persons pursuant to the provisions of the same text) (section 3), and provides for the application of such procedures and measures as may be necessary to ensure the continuous functioning of essential public services (section 4).
  274. 274 The Government emphasises the legality of mobilising officials while the emergency security measures are in force, in order to ensure that essential services shall continue to function. It adds that there is no truth at all in what has been said about the torturing of the staff of the UTE, and that " despite the popular resentment against an illegal strike brought about by the terror exerted by minority groups, a strike that left the city of Montevideo without electricity, and hospitals, transport and other vital services without light or power " and thanks to the order enforced by the authorities, no serious violence occurred. The Government states that it has not taken over or dissolved any trade union organisations; it has applied to them, as to all associations, only the general provisions laid down by the decree on emergency security measures, and stresses that the preservation of liberty and, consequently, of trade union rights, is the chief object of the Government.
  275. 275 The Government has submitted the texts of various decrees concerning the declaration of a bank holiday on 24 June, the mobilisation of the officials necessary to ensure the normal functioning of the State Sanitation Service, the Telecommunications Administration, the State Telephone Service, and the National Fuel, Alcohol and Portland Cement Administration. Reference is made, in the texts of these decrees, to the stoppages which have resulted in the interruption or paralysis of the essential activities of these bodies. The measures taken are based on the decree on emergency security measures and on section 27 of Act No. 9943, pursuant to which citizens may be mobilised in the cases provided for in the Constitution. Section 8 of the above-mentioned Act authorises such mobilisation for the purpose of ensuring the functioning of services essential to the life of the country. Section 34 of the Military Code also authorises the mobilisation of citizens by the Administration when, in its view, this is justified by the needs of the public services, in the cases provided for in the Constitution.
  276. 276 The Government states in its communication of 16 October 1969 that the decree on security measures and the provisions concerning the mobilisation of certain officials and employees will remain in force until such time as the competent authorities, in accordance with the Constitution, take a decision in this connection. Thus, the Government points out that, after the ending of the mobilisation of officials of the State Sanitation Service, pursuant to a Decree of 19 August 1969, the measures applicable to officials of the National Fuel, Alcohol and Portland Cement Administration and of the Telecommunications Administration were similarly withdrawn on 26 September. In view of the gradual return to normality, the Government is introducing demobilisation by stages; this should affect, in the immediate future, provided the situation remains as at present, all those covered by the decrees which have been promulgated. The Government will take, at the right time, all the decisions necessary to put an end to the state of emergency.
  277. 277 The Government states that the arrests carried out have been made in strict agreement with the provisions of article 168, paragraph 17, of the Constitution, There has been no torture or humiliating treatment of any kind, and the allegations as to beatings are completely without foundation. In its communication of 16 October 1969, the Government states that Messrs d'Elia, Toledo, Constanzo and Trombeta, who were arrested in June 1969, were released in August; Mr. Gómez and Mr. Lanza, who were arrested in July, were released in August and September respectively. The arrests were made as a result of offences against the decree of 24 June. There is no record of the arrest at any police station of Humberto Reyes and Tita Cogo.
  278. 278 Moreover, the Government reiterates that, with the stabilisation of the cost of living and with inflation held in check since the second half of 1968, the real level of wages has risen in recent months. The policy of a reasonable adjustment of all salaries and wages, both in the public sector and in the private sector, has continued.
  279. 279 The Government states emphatically that: (a) no official, worker or employee has been arrested as such; the arrests in question-within the Constitutional framework of the emergency security measures-were made in those cases where the persons concerned were engaged in activities constituting a breach of law and order, carrying out subversive acts, or contravening the Decree of 24 June 1969; (b) no trade union or industrial association has been taken over; all that has been done is to enforce, with respect to all associations, section 2 of the above-mentioned decree; (c) there has been no ill-treatment or torture of any kind; (d) it is a complete calumny to state that forced labour of any kind has been imposed; the occurrence mentioned in the communication (of the WCL) of 25 August 1969 never took place. The Government is willing to agree-so far as the content of the above four paragraphs is concerned-to any procedure and any acceptable method of establishing proof in order to demonstrate the falsity of these accusations.
  280. 280 The Government reiterates in its observations that, in Uruguay, there is no systematic violation of the rights of the workers, contrary to what is asserted in one of the complaints. It states that democratic institutions and Constitutional government hold sway in Uruguay, and affirms its full respect, not only for all the International Labour standards, but also for the basic principles of the ILO, which are the fundamental principles of its own system of public order.
  281. 281 In its communication of 28 October 1969, which was received too late for the Committee to examine at its present session, the Government replies to the allegations of the UTE Employees' Union, summarised in paragraphs 262-264.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 282. The Committee observes that the questions referred to by the complainants in the present case appear to constitute, in essentials, the continuation or repetition in 1969 of certain occurrences which were examined by the Committee in Case No. 561, concerning Uruguay. This case, as the Committee observed, basically involved a series of measures taken by the Uruguayan Government (in 1968)-emergency security measures similar to a state of siege, the freezing of salaries and prices, and the mobilisation of workers-which applied to workers in various state agencies. According to the allegations made on this occasion, the measures taken by the Government were aimed at imposing a wage freeze, suppressing the claims put forward by the workers and impeding the exercise of the right to strike by mobilising the workers, while other measures, such as the banning of meetings, the dismissal and imprisonment of trade union officials and workers, etc., had been adopted.
2. 283. In connection with these matters, the Committee recalled, at its session in February 1969, that in other cases in which complaints had been made of alleged infringements of freedom of association under a state of siege or emergency or by virtue of national security legislation, the Committee had stated that it was not called upon to comment on the necessity for or desirability of such legislation, which is a purely political consideration, but must consider what repercussions the legislation might have on trade union rights.
3. 284. The Committee also recalled that, on other occasions when it has had to examine complaints involving the mobilisation of workers, it has taken the view that such a measure is of an exceptional nature in view of the gravity of its consequences with regard to personal freedoms and trade union rights, and could be justified only by the need to ensure the functioning of essential services or industries whose interruption would lead to a situation of acute crisis.
4. 285. In addition, on this occasion, in view of the statement by the Government that strikes in the civil service are not permitted, the Committee, considering that the allegations concerning the right to strike fall within its competence, although only to the extent to which they affect trade union rights, considered it necessary to recall that, while restrictions on strikes in the civil service or in essential services could be accepted, there should in such cases be adequate guarantees to safeguard the interests of the workers who were thereby deprived of an essential means of defending their occupational interests, which implied that such restrictions should be accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures in which the parties concerned could participate at all stages.
5. 286. Furthermore, the Committee observed that the wage freeze ordered by the Government did not affect the public sector alone but also curtailed collective bargaining in the private sector of the economy. In this connection, the Committee recalled I that it had pointed out in one of its earlier cases that the development of procedures for voluntary negotiation constituted an important aspect of freedom of association, but that it would be difficult to lay down an absolute rule in this matter since, under certain circumstances, governments might feel that the position of their countries called at certain times for stabilisation measures, during the application of which it would not be possible for wage rates to be fixed freely through the medium of collective bargaining.
6. 287. At its sessions in February and May 1969, the Committee examined the information submitted by the Government concerning the measures adopted in 1968 and the subsequent occurrences and, in particular, the information concerning the reasons for the introduction of the emergency measures, the subsequent repeal of such measures, and the release of the trade unionists who had been arrested on this occasion. The Committee also received a statement in which the Government declared that it was strictly applying, and would continue to apply, the principles laid down by the Committee concerning the guarantees to be accorded to workers deprived of the right to strike, a subject dealt with by an Act promulgated in December 1968, which is concerned with the conciliation procedures applicable to such workers. After having emphasised the importance of the principles given in the preceding paragraphs 283 to 286, and having taken note that the emergency measures, including those concerning the mobilisation of civil servants introduced in 1968, had been repealed, the Committee, at its session in May 1969, recommended the Governing Body to decide that Case No. 561 did not call for a more thorough examination on its part.
7. 288. The allegations made in the present case refer essentially to a new decree on emergency security measures promulgated by the Uruguayan Government on 24 June 1969. It is stated in one of the complaints that the reason for the new security measures was the disquiet of the workers when faced by the wage freeze and the dismissal of its leaders, and it is alleged in another that, by the repeated application of such measures, the Government intends to make them the normal method of solving labour conflicts. The Government, for its part, categorically denies these allegations and submits the text of the provisions in question, according to which the security measures were introduced after the calling of a general strike intended to include the civil service and essential services provided by state agencies and aimed at interrupting various services and disrupting public order. The Government states that the system of security measures will remain in force for such a period as may be necessary for normality to be achieved, but that the measures for the mobilisation of workers have already been rescinded in respect of the workers employed by various state agencies; such measures appear to be still in force with respect to the workers in the State Telephone Service (UTE) where, to judge from the complaints, the conflict between the trade union organisation concerned and the authorities appears to have been particularly serious. In fact, so far as this conflict is concerned, the Committee observes that the complaints are not restricted to the mobilisation measures introduced on 24 June 1969, but also contain allegations concerning the systematic refusal of the administrative authorities to meet the trade union representatives in order to discuss the problems affecting the workers, concerning the dismissal of numerous trade union officials, and concerning the prevention of the collection of union dues and the appropriation of the dues for a particular month. The Committee proposes to examine at its next session the reply of the Government to the allegation submitted in this connection by the UTE Employees' Union.
8. 289. Certain general measures provided for in the decree on emergency security measures appear, then, to be still in force, namely the prohibition of all propaganda in favour of stoppages and strikes, and of meetings connected therewith, the premises in which it is intended to hold such meetings being liable to closure; furthermore, it is still legally possible to arrest or detain any person, and consequently any trade unionist, without previous trial. The Government emphasises that its fundamental objective is to ensure liberty for all, including the trade unions, and states that all the measures were taken with this end in view, recalling also that the National Assembly, which continues to function normally, can order their rescission. Furthermore, the application of these measures within the legal framework is said to be ensured by the judiciary, whose independence is stressed by the Government.
9. 290. The Committee takes note of these observations of the Government, and takes note likewise, in particular, of its declaration that it is willing to agree to any procedure and any acceptable method of establishing proof in order to clarify the questions mentioned in the complaints concerning the reasons for the arrest of trade unionists under the system of emergency security measures and the treatment of those arrested and mobilised, and concerning the application of such measures as far as the trade union organisations are concerned.
10. 291. The Government states explicitly that it has neither dissolved nor taken over any trade union organisation. It follows from its observations that, as far as such organisations are concerned, it has applied to them only the prohibition of meetings connected with stoppages and strikes, this being provided for in the decree on security measures, which empowers the authorities to close the premises in which it is intended to hold such meetings. In this connection, certain allegations to which the Government has not specifically replied refer to the closing down of the headquarters of the CNT (whose officials are said to have been obliged to operate under conditions of clandestinity) and of the UTE Employees' Union; in addition, according to the complainants, the channels of communication of the unions have been blocked. In view of the importance which the Committee and the Governing Body have always given to the principle that the right of trade unions to meet freely in their own premises without the need for any prior authorisation and without any form of control by the authorities constitutes a fundamental element of freedom of association, and to the principle that the right to express opinions through the press or in any other way is certainly one of the essential elements of the rights of trade unions, the Committee considers that, in order to pursue the examination of such allegations with full knowledge of the case and to determine the scope of the security measures as far as the exercise of these rights is concerned, it would be useful to receive more precise information from the Government concerning the matter.
11. 292. With reference to the particular cases of arrest mentioned by the complainants, the Government has submitted information concerning six trade unionists who have been released, and two who are said not to have been arrested. On the other hand, the Government does not refer specifically to the alleged arrest of the trade unionists Ariel Mederos, Hugo Castro, Ricardo Mario Acosta, Humberto Rodriguez and Eduardo Platero, and has not yet submitted its observations concerning the complaint of the World Federation of Teachers' Unions.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 293. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to take note that, in their essentials, the questions of principle concerning the introduction by the Government of emergency security measures has already been examined by the Committee in its 110th and 112th Reports, approved by the Governing Body, in connection with an earlier case concerning Uruguay (Case No. 561);
   • (b) with regard to the allegations made in the present case with respect to the security measures promulgated by the Decree of 24 June 1969, to take note of the statements of the Government according to which no official, worker or employee has been arrested as such, the arrests-within the Constitutional system of the emergency security measures-having been made on the grounds of activities contrary to public order, subversive acts or contraventions of the above-mentioned decree; no industrial or trade union organisation has been taken over; no person has been maltreated or tortured, and no form of forced labour has been imposed, the Government being willing to agree to any procedure and any acceptable method of establishing proof in order to elucidate these matters;
   • (c) to take note of the statement of the Government according to which the mobilisation of workers in various state agencies has already been rescinded, and that it is hoped that demobilisation will soon affect all those workers covered by the decrees which have been promulgated;
   • (d) in view of the serious consequences that the mobilisation of workers may have from the point of view of the exercise of trade union rights, and the fact that such measures can be justified only by the need to ensure the functioning of essential services or industries the interruption of which would give rise to a situation of acute crisis, to express the hope that the measures of this type still remaining in force may be repealed as soon as possible and to request the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken for this purpose;
   • (e) to request the Government to be good enough to submit its observations relating specifically to the allegations concerning the closure of the premises of the CNT and the UTE Employees' Union;
   • (f) to take note of the information submitted by the Government according to which six" of the trade unionists mentioned in the complaints, who had been arrested, have been released, and that no record of the arrest of two others can be found, but to request the Government to be good enough to submit its observations with regard to the other trade unionists mentioned in paragraph 292;
   • (g) to take note of the present interim report, it being understood that the Committee will present a further report once it has received the additional information and observations requested from the Government in subparagraphs (d), (e) and (f) of this paragraph.
     • Geneva, 13 November 1969.(Signed) Roberto AGO, Chairman.