Interim Report - Report No 241, November 1985

Case No 1204 (Paraguay) - Complaint date: 20-MAY-83 - Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Go to:

INTRODUCTION
A. A. The complainants' allegations
A. General conclusions
B. Conclusions on Case No. 1204
C. Conclusions on Case No. 1275
D. Conclusions on Case No. 1301
E. Conclusions of the Committee on Case No. 1328
F. Conclusions on Case No. 1341
The Committee's recommendations
Z. ANNEX

522. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions presented the complaints corresponding to Cases Nos. 1204 (communications dated 20 and 27 May and 13 and 16 October 1983), 1275 (communication dated 17 April 1984), 1301 (communications dated 6 and 25 September 1984), and 1341 (communication dated 24 June 1985). The Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) presented the complaint corresponding to Case No. 1328 in a communication dated 6 April 1985.
523. Having received certain observations from the Government, the Committee examined Cases Nos. 1204 and 1275 at its meeting in November 1984, and submitted interim reports to the Governing Body (see 236th Report of the Committee, paras. 426 to 443 and 444 to 458, approved by the Governing Body at its 238th Session (November 1984)).
524. The Government representative at the 71st Session of the International Labour Conference (June 1985) subsequently handed in a number of documents containing certain information relating to Cases Nos. 1204, 1275 and 1301.
525. At the 71st Session (Geneva, 1985) of the International Labour Conference, the Government representative of Paraguay informed the Committee on the Application of Standards that his Government had requested a direct contacts mission to deal specifically with the application of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 (both ratified by Paraguay).
526. Following the discussion of the case of Paraguay in the Committee on the Application of Standards, the Government presented a communication dated 20 June 1985 to the Office, expressly requesting that the forthcoming direct contacts mission would also examine the cases pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association.
527. The Director-General of the ILO appointed Mr. von Potobsky, a former official of the ILO, as his representative to carry out this mission, which took place from 23 to 27 September 1985 in Asunción, and which also included a visit to Buenos Aires on 21 September for the purpose of contacting and discussing with the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers in Exile (CPTE). The representative of the Director-General was accompanied on the mission by Mr. Alberto Odero, a member of the Freedom of Association Branch of the Department of International Labour Standards, and Mr. Luis Zamudio, Regional Adviser on Standards. The report on the mission is attached.
528. Paraguay 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

529. Following the mission, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the International Federation of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers (IFPAAW), in communications dated respectively 2 and 3 October 1985, presented new allegations in connection with Case No. 1341. These organisations alleged in their communications that Marcelino Corazón Medina, chairman of the Co-ordination Committee of Agricultural Producers, has been detained for over ten days, having been arbitrarily imprisoned in the police station in Asunción, where he is being subjected to physical and psychological torture and deprived of visiting rights. He is now on a hunger strike and, since he is in a fragile state of health, it is feared that his life is in danger. In a communication dated 15 October 1985, the ICFTU states that Mr. Corazón Medina has been transferred, in a serious condition, to the prison hospital. In addition, it alleges that for about 30 days the Government has arbitrarily imprisoned Sebastián Rodríguez (Secretary General of the Drivers' Trade Union of "Asunción-Fernando de la Mora" Line 21) for the sole reason of having organised a musical festival to raise funds for his unemployed colleagues. The Government sent certain information in a communication dated 30 October 1985 in which it states, in particular, that Mr. Marcelino Corazón Medina has been released.
530. The Committee would first like to thank Mr. Geraldo von Potobsky for having accepted to carry out the direct-contacts mission, and for his detailed report on the cases under consideration, which has enabled the Committee to examine them. The Committee considers that the report of the representative of the Director-General demonstrates the usefulness of missions of this kind in clarifying the issues raised in the allegations of the complainant organisations.
531. Since the contents of the allegations and the information supplied by the Government, as well as the information obtained by the representative of the Director-General during the mission, are covered in the report on the mission, the Committee may proceed directly with its conclusions on each case.

A. General conclusions

532. The Committee takes note of the report of the representative of the Director-General on the mission carried out from 23 to 27 September 1985 in Paraguay. The Committee also notes that, as the report on the mission states, the representative of the Director-General was provided with every facility by the authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour to enable him to carry out the mission. The Committee observes in this respect that information was obtained during the mission on all of the cases under consideration. It regrets, however, that it was not possible to arrange an interview between the representative of the Director-General and the Minister of the Interior or a high official of that ministry, in connection with certain specific allegations falling within its sphere of competence which were made in the context of Cases Nos. 1204 and 1341.

B. Conclusions on Case No. 1204

533. Regarding the allegations as to detentions, the Committee observes that all of the persons concerned (nine) have been released. The Committee regrets that the Government has failed to state the specific reasons for the detention of these persons, except in the case of Mr. Aldo Zuccolillo (detained for systematically and crudely harassing the Government in the publication "ABC Color") and of Mr. Jorge Alvarenga (a doctor detained for acts unrelated to trade unionism, according to the information supplied by the Government). The Committee also observes that the Government denies in every case, either explicitly or implicitly, that the detentions were connected with trade union activities. In these circumstances, in view of the lack of information in most cases on the specific reasons for the detentions, and given the time which has elapsed since the allegations were presented (May and October 1983), and the fact that all of the persons concerned have been released, the Committee draws attention in general terms to the principle that the arrest or detention of trade union leaders and trade unionists for activities connected with the exercise of trade union rights is contrary to the principles of freedom of association (see, for example, 218th Report, Case No. 1129 (Nicaragua), para. 477).
534. As regards the difficulties encountered by the Union of Journalists of Paraguay (SPP) for several years in its attempts to obtain legal personality, the Committee observes that in 1983 the Labour Directorate notified the trade union that it could not be set up because of defects of substance such as the existence of another association for the same purposes. The Committee also notes that there seems to have been a shift in the Government's position since then, since while it states that the SPP has not taken any steps since 1979 for its establishment, it affirms expressly that, from the legal standpoint, there is no reason why it should not be set up. While the Committee regrets that the present secretary-general of the SPP did not attend the appointment arranged with the representative of the Director-General, it hopes that the Union of Journalists of Paraguay will apply for and be granted legal personality in the near future. In addition, the Committee recalls that the existence of an organisation in a determined occupation should not constitute an obstacle to the establishment of another organisation, if the workers so wish.
535. As regards the allegation of dismissal of workers from the "América Textil" undertaking, the Committee observes that there is a discrepancy between the contents of the allegations and the Government's statements. While both agree that dismissals occurred in this undertaking, the complainant organisation alleged that they had taken place after the presentation of requests in the trade unions' list of claims. The Government, however, stated that the dismissals (affecting 27 workers) had taken place a month before the trade union had applied to the authorities for recognition. The Committee regrets that the América Textil undertaking has refused to meet with the representative of the Director-General of the ILO and that it has not been possible to obtain information which would clarify the facts. In these circumstances, in view of the lack of sufficient information and given the proximity in time between the dismissals and the steps taken to set up a trade union in the undertaking concerned (a trade union which was not recognised because it failed to attain the number of members required by legislation, owing to the dismissals which took place), the Committee merely draws attention to the principle that no worker should be dismissed or subjected to other acts of discrimination in employment for carrying out trade union activities.
536. Finally, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, there is no undertaking called "FRISA S.A." and that Radio Ñanduti was closed down not for the reasons given by the complainant organisation, but for political reasons.

C. Conclusions on Case No. 1275

537. The Committee notes that, according to the mission report, the Labour Appeals Court, by decision of 27 December 1984, decided in favour of the claims of the Union of Employees of the Bank of Brazil on the matters in dispute regarding the renewal of the collective agreement.
538. As regards the dismissal of trade unionists Duarte, Virgili and Cáceres, the Committee notes the information provided in the report of the representative of the Director-General. In view of the fact that this case is pending judgement in court, the Committee adjourns examination of this matter until judgement is pronounced and requests the Government to transmit a copy of the judgement as soon as it is handed down.

D. Conclusions on Case No. 1301

539. The Committee observes that in this case the complainant organisation has alleged that, between 18 August and 10 September 1984, Melanio Morel, Gregorio Ojeda, Pedro Zárate, Carlos Castillo and Nicasio Guzmán, all of whom are trade union leaders or trade unionists belonging to the National Union of Construction Workers (SINATRAC) were detained while setting up a trade union in the ACEPAR iron and steel plant. The Committee also observes that three of these persons met with the representative of the Director-General and stated the following: (1) they had intended to set up a works committee in the undertaking which was building the ACEPAR plant; (2) on 18 August 1984, as they were preparing for an assembly which they had called at the bus stop near the ACEPAR plant, and after they had been warned by the police that they should not hold the assembly, they were detained by members of the armed forces; and (3) they had not been brought to trial.
540. The Committee notes that, according to the authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour with whom the representative of the Director-General met, ACEPAR is a semi-public undertaking located in the military zone and run by military personnel. Moreover, according to the ministry authorities, the assembly which had been called was unauthorised and therefore could not be held. The organisers of the assembly had consequently been detained by the armed forces. They were later released without having been brought to trial.
541. Although the Committee considers the fact that the legislation of a country, in order to prevent disruption of the public order, requires administrative authorisation for the organisation of meetings in public places does not run counter to the principles of freedom of association, it wishes to draw attention to the fact that given the absence of criminal acts in the present case, the mere fact of having organised a trade union assembly should not have resulted in the detention of the trade union leaders and trade unionists involved. Therefore, the Committee regrets the detention of these trade union leaders and trade unionists and draws the attention of the Government to the fact that detention of trade union leaders for activities connected with the exercise of trade union rights is contrary to the principles of freedom of association (see, for example, 218th Report, Case No. 1129 (Nicaragua), para. 477). Furthermore, in view of the fact that the period of detention lasted more than 20 days, and that none of the trade unionists was brought to trial, the Committee would emphasise the principle that any person who is detained should immediately be brought before the competent court.
542. Finally, the Committee notes that, according to the detainees themselves, they were not dismissed, as they do not work in an employment relationship but as a crew engaged under a contract for services, although since being detained they have been unable to obtain contracts with building enterprises, only with individuals. The Committee also notes that, according to the authorities, the persons concerned do not appear to be actually working in the construction industry.

E. Conclusions of the Committee on Case No. 1328

543. The Committee observes that the complainant organisation mainly objects to the recognition by the Ministry of Labour on 17 October 1984 of the executive committee elected at an assembly to reorganise the National Union of Construction Workers (SINATRAC), held on 13 October 1984 and led by the Secretary-General of that organisation, Milciades Giménez Díaz, a supporter of government policy.
544. The Committee also observes that, some months earlier, on 11 March 1984, a split occurred in the executive committee of SINATRAC, dividing it into two different factions: one headed by Milciades Giménez Díaz, Secretary-General of SINATRAC, and the other by Lino Gómez, Deputy Secretary-General of SINATRAC. Each faction organised an assembly to elect a new executive committee, as the term of office of the existing committee was due to expire on 18 October 1985. Thus, the faction led by Milciades Giménez Díaz called an assembly on 13 October 1984, while the faction led by Lino Gómez called another for 14 October 1984, although the latter was postponed by the police and was held on 21 October 1984.
545. On 17 October 1984, as stated, the Government recognised the executive committee elected at the assembly of 13 October 1984 led by Milciades Giménez Díaz. However, when it was informed of the executive committee elected on 21 October 1984 at the assembly led by Lino Gómez, the competent authority of the Ministry of Justice and Labour notified Lino Gómez on 21 November 1984 of the text of a decision of the legal consultant's office stating that recognition could not be granted since "by Resolution No. 1717 dated 17 October of the current year the Labour Directorate registered the National Union of Construction Workers, whose executive committee is currently in office, and its term of office is due to expire in 1987 according to its statutes". A subsequent decision issued by the legal consultant's office, notified by the Director of Labour on 15 February 1985, stated that an appeal could be lodged through the administrative disputes procedure.
546. The Committee concludes that the authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour, aware of the existence of two assemblies to elect a new executive committee, appear to have based their recognition of one of the committees on considerations of time alone, that is, on the fact that the executive committee elected at the assembly led by Milciades Giménez Díaz was the first to apply for recognition. The Committee observes that the competent authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour, referring to the allegations, told the representative of the Director-General that the situation was sometimes confusing, in the general context of the internal disagreement among the members of the executive committee of SINATRAC. According to the ministry authorities, once Lino Gómez had been informed of the decision to recognise the executive committee elected on 13 October 1984, he could have lodged an administrative appeal against that decision.
547. The Committee considers that, irrespective of whether such an appeal was possible (which Lino Gómez's group denies), the decision of 17 October 1984 of the Ministry of Justice and Labour to recognise the executive committee elected by the assembly of 13 October 1984 constitutes a decision that was arbitrary and taken in too great haste. The Ministry was fully aware that another duly convened assembly was to be held a few days later (on 21 October) for the same purpose. The Committee would like to point out that when internal disputes arise in a trade union organisation they should be resolved by the persons concerned, by appointing an independent mediator with the agreement of the parties concerned, or by intervention of the judicial authorities.

F. Conclusions on Case No. 1341

548. The Committee observes that the representative of the Director-General was able to note the police surveillance and shadowing to which Ricardo Esperanza Leiva, former leader of the Liebig Refrigeration Union and leader of the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers in Exile (CPTE), is being subjected. The Committee requests the Government to alter what it calls the methods of protecting the life and safety of Mr. Leiva so that, if considered objectively, there can be no confusion with police surveillance.
549. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, Mr. Marcelino Corazón Medina has been released. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the alleged torture of this trade union leader indicating what were the concrete facts leading to his detention, as well as on the alleged detention of Sebastián Rodríguez, Secretary-General of the Drivers' Union of Line 21.

The Committee's recommendations

550. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this interim report and, in particular, the following conclusions:
- The Committee notes that a direct contacts mission visited the country from 23 to 27 September 1985.
- Case No. 1204
  - (a) The Committee draws attention in general terms to the principle that the arrest or detention of trade union leaders and trade unionists for activities connected with the exercise of trade union rights is contrary to the principles of freedom of association.
  - (b) In view of the fact that, according to the Government, there is no reason from the legal standpoint why the Union of Journalists of Paraguay should not be set up, the Committee hopes that this union will apply for and be granted legal personality in the near future.
  - (c) The Committee draws attention to the principle that no worker should be dismissed or subjected to other acts of discrimination in employment for carrying out trade union activities.
- Case No. 1275
  - (a) The Committee notes that, according to the mission report, the Labour Appeals Court, by decision of 27 December 1984, decided in favour of the claims of the Union of Employees of the Bank of Brazil on the matters in dispute regarding the renewal of the collective agreement.
  - (b) The Committee notes that the matter of the dismissal of trade unionists Duarte, Virgili and Cáceres is pending judgement in court. The Committee adjourns its examination of this matter until judgement is pronounced, and requests the Government to transmit a copy of the judgement as soon as it is handed down.
- Case No. 1301
  - (a) The Committee regrets the detention of five trade union leaders and trade unionists of the National Union of Construction Workers.
  - (b) The Committee reiterates the principle that the detention of trade union leaders for activities connected with the exercise of trade union rights is contrary to the principles of freedom of association.
  - (c) In view of the fact that the period of detention lasted more than 20 days and that none of the five trade unionists was brought to trial, the Committee stresses the principle that any person who is detained must be brought without delay before the competent court.
- Case No. 1328
  - (a) The Committee considers that the decision of 17 October 1984 of the Ministry of Justice and Labour to recognise the executive committee of SINATRAC, elected by the assembly held on 13 October 1984, taken in full awareness that another regularly convened assembly was to be held for the same purpose a few days later on 21 October, constitutes an arbitrary and too speedy decision.
  - (b) The Committee draws attention to the fact that when internal disputes arise in a trade union organisation, they should be resolved by the persons concerned, by appointing an independent mediator with the agreement of the parties concerned, or by intervention of the judicial authorities.
- Case No. 1341
  - (a) The Committee requests the Government to change what it calls the methods of protecting the life and safety of Mr. Leiva so that, if objectively considered, there can be no confusion with police surveillance.
  - (b) The Committee notes that Mr. Marcelino Corazón Medina has been released. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the alleged torture of this trade union leader stating what were the concrete facts leading to his detention, as well as on the detention of Sebastián Rodríguez, Secretary-General of the Drivers' Trade Union of Line 21.

Z. ANNEX

REPORT OF MR. GERALDO VON POTOBSKY ON THE DIRECT CONTACTS MISSION CARRIED OUT
IN PARAGUAY (23-27 SEPTEMBER 1985)
1. 1 At the 71st Session of the International Labour Conference (Geneva, 1985),
the Government representative of Paraguay informed the Committee on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations that "his Government has
requested a direct contacts mission to deal specifically with the application
of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98" (both ratified by Paraguay), and pointed out
that "the direct contacts will be carried out with the presence of the three
groups (government, employers' organisations and workers' organisations). The
Workers' member of Austria (Mr. Maier) "hoped that when the direct contacts
mission went to Paraguay it would also deal with the cases pending before the
Committee on Freedom of Association".
1. 2 For their part the Workers' members of Uruguay and Argentina expressed
their hope that the mission would be able to make contact with the Paraguayan
Confederation of Workers in Exile.
1. 3 Following the discussion of the case of Paraguay in the Committee on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations, the Government sent to the
Office a communication dated 28 June 1985 in which it expressedly requested
that the direct contacts mission to be carried out should also examine the
cases pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association.
1. 4 The Director-General of the ILO appointed me as his representative to carry
out this mission, which took place between 23 and 27 September in Asunción and
which also included a visit to Buenos Aires on 21 September with a view to
establishing contact and holding discussions with the Paraguayan Confederation
of Workers in Exile (CPTE). I was accompanied on the mission by Mr. Alberto
Odero, member of the Freedom of Association Branch of the International Labour
Standards Department, and by Mr. Luis Zamudio, Regional Adviser on standards.
1. 5 During the mission we met Mr. Eugenio Jacquet, Minister of Justice and
Labour, and Mr. Carlos Doldán del Puerto, Director of Labour, and had several
meetings with the latter and his collaborators. We also spoke with
representatives of the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers (CPT), the
Federation of Production, Industry and Commerce (FEPPINCO), the Paraguayan
Industrial Union, the Federation of Bank Employees (FETRABAN) and the National
Union of Building Workers (SINATRAC) as well as other trade union leaders,
trade unionists and interested parties. The list of these persons appears at
the end of this report.
1. 6 It was not possible to arrange a meeting with the Minister of the Interior
or any other high official of this Ministry, before whom we should have liked
to place certain specific allegations falling within their sphere of
competence (Cases Nos. 1204 and 1341) in order to obtain information and
comments.
1. 7 During the meeting with the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers in Exile
(CPTE), its leaders provided us with information on the trade union situation
in their country and expressed their surprise that this had been the first
time that the ILO was carrying out a mission of this kind in Paraguay.
Furthermore, they made a formal observation concerning the time which had
elapsed concerning the examination of the complaints presented. Finally, they
requested that the Ministry of Justice and Labour should be informed
concerning the imminent return to the country of Mr. Julio Etcheverry
Espínola, Secretary-General of the organisation, who hoped to be able to enjoy
all his constitutional rights. The Minister of Justice and Labour stated that
Mr. Etcheverry would enjoy these rights like any other citizen, provided that
he observed the law of the country.
1. 8 I should like to place on record that I was given every assistance by the
authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour in carrying out the mission
for which I am extremely grateful. I should also like to thank all those
persons interviewed for the information which they provided.
1. 9 The present report includes various documents which we received during the
course of the mission for the purposes of our inquiry.
Cases pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association
1. 10 At present five complaints against the Government of Paraguay (Cases Nos.
2. 1204, 1275, 1301, 1328 and 1341) are pending before the Committee on Freedom
of Association. The Committee examined Cases Nos. 1204 and 1275 at its meeting
of November 1984 (see 236th Report of the Committee, paragraphs 426-44 and
1. 448-458) and presented an interim report to the Governing Body since the
Government had not responded to certain matters or was requested to provide
additional information.
1. 11 The Government representative to the 71st Session of the International
Labour Conference handed the Office a series of documents which contained
information concerning Cases Nos. 1204, 1275 and 1301. No observations from
the Government were received concerning Cases Nos. 1328 and 1341.
1. 12 During the mission we discussed the matters raised in the cases before the
Committee on Freedom of Association with officials of the Ministry of Labour
and various interested parties.
Case No. 1204
1. 13 This complaint was presented by the International Confederation of Free
Trade Unions in communications dated 20 and 27 May, 13 October and 16 December
1. 1983 The Government sent certain observations in a communication dated 14
September 1984. The Committee on Freedom of Association examined the case, as
already noted, at its meeting of November 1984 and made the following
recommendations which summarise with sufficient clarity the matters which
remained pending (see 236th Report, paragraph 443):
- (a) Regarding the arrest of 19 members of the the Trade Union Solidarity
Movement (MSS) as part of a campaign of repression following the setting up of
this organisation, the Committee observes that, according to the Government,
one of the persons concerned is a fugitive from justice who has not been
arrested and 13 others were released without the judicial authorities
upholding any charges against them. The Committee deeply regrets that these 13
trade unionists were deprived of their freedom for more than a year in most
cases and draws the Government's attention to the fact that the arrest and
detention of trade union leaders and trade unionists for trade union reasons
constitute a violation of the principles of freedom of association. The
Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the arrest of
Stella Rufinelli, Margarita Elías, Damián Vera, Juan Carlos Oviedo and María
Herminia Feliciangeli following the setting up of the MSS of which they are
said to be members.
- (b) The Committee regrets that the Government has not replied to the remaining
allegations: the difficulties encountered by the Union of Journalists of
Paraguay (SPP) for the past four years in its attempts to obtain legal
personality; the threatened exile of the leaders and members of the SPP; the
arrest and trial of the leader of the SPP, Alcibiades González del Valle; the
arrest of Aldo Zucalillo, director of ABC Color for allowing the publication
of matters of trade union interest; the threats against, harassment of and
restrictions imposed on this newspaper for publishing the setting up of the
MSS; the arrest of Dr. Jorge Alvarenga and Dr. Carlos Cuevas during a
round-table discussion on "trade unionism and repression"; the arbitrary
dismissal of the workers from the La Americana SA textile company following
the submission by the trade unions of a list of demands; the threatened
dismissal of 800 workers of the FRISA SA company following the request by the
trade unions for payment of unpaid wages; the closing down of Radio Ñandutí
for transmitting messages from the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers in
Exile and a ban on the commentator and director of the radio station from
exercising his profession. The Committee requests the Government to send its
observations on this matter without delay.
1. 14 The Government provided the following information during the 71st Session
of the International Labour Conference:
- - All the persons arested for infractions of Act No. 209 to which the
complainant had referred are now free. María Herminia Feliciangeli was held
under arrest between 11 May and 18 September 1983; Margarita Elías Acosta,
from 11 May to 18 September 1983; María Estela Rufinelli, from 11 to 30 May
1. 1983; Juan Carlos Oviedo, from 11 to 16 May 1983; and Pedro Damían Vera, from
2. 12 to 24 May 1983.
  - - The Union of Journalists of Paraguay requested its recognition in 1979. The
3. authorities noted substantial errors in the setting up of the trade union
which needed to be remedied; in particular, an association with the same
objectives, called the Press Association of Paraguay, already existed and
furthermore opposed the establishment of a new trade union; moreover, there
was no unanimous agreement between the supporters of the trade union
concerning its creation since a group of journalists opposed its
establishment. In the circumstances, the Labour Directorate informed the
applicants on 6 September 1983 that they would first of all have to resolve
their existing internal problems before any decision could be taken concerning
the recognition of the union. Since then, none of the necessary formalities
has been taken with a view to the registration of the union.
- - Carlos Cuevas Miranda, a doctor, was arrested on 4 July 1983. Legal
proceedings were initiated against him for infraction of Act No. 209. He was
released from prison on 11 July 1983 on the instructions of the Judge of the
Penal Court of the First Instance and at the present time is living and
exercising his profession near Caaguazú.
- - Jorge Alvarenga Galeano, who was born in Buenos Aires, was arrested on 22
June 1983 opposite the Faculty of Engineering, for shouting slogans against
the country, the Government and the authorities whilst meeting with a group of
students who had been suspended by the rector of the National University. On 5
July 1983 he was deported to Buenos Aires but re-entered Paraguay on 6
February 1984 and left again on his own initiative on 10 February 1984 without
any intervention by the Paraguayan authorities.
- - In the América Textil undertaking a trade union requested recognition of its
occupational status on 26 December 1979. The Labour Inspectorate observed that
it did not have the number of members required by law since a large number of
the applicants were in fact workers who had been dismissed or who had received
advance notice of dismissal. Subsequently, no new steps have been taken with a
view to its registration.
- - With respect to the allegation concerning the FRISA SA undertaking, no
information is available in the Labour Directorate concerning the threats of
dismissal alleged by the complainant.
1. 15 During the mission we were able to gather the following information on
these various matters.
1. 16 With regard to the alleged detention of Stella Rufinelli and four other
persons following the establishment of the MSS, the authorities of the
Ministry of Justice and Labour stated that these persons were free (in
conformity with the information supplied by the Government representative to
1. the 71st Session of the International Labour Conference), that they had been
arrested during an investigation into the "Paraguayan Data Bank" affair and
that they were never taken to court. We were informed that the "Paraguayan
Data Bank" was an intelligence unit which acted as the headquarters for
conspiratorial activities of a Marxist-Leninist nature. Under the cover of its
supposed data processing activities, its real function was of a subversive
nature.
1. 17 As regards the alleged difficulties of the Union of Journalists of
Paraguay (SPP) over the past four years to obtain legal personality, the
authorities of the Ministry referred to the information supplied by the
Government representative to the 71st Session of the International Labour
Conference and stressed that this trade union had taken no new steps with a
view to obtaining legal personality and that there was no legal impediment to
the establishment of the trade union. We invited Mr. José Gaspar Meaurio, the
current Secretary-General of the trade union, to a meeting to discuss these
matters, but he did not attend. As regards the arrest and prosecution of Mr.
Alcibiades González del Valle, leader of the Union of Journalists of Paraguay,
the authorities of the Ministry pointed out that this person is free and
freely exercising his professional activity at the present time. In the past
he had been arrested on several occasions but never for trade union reasons.
It should be noted that Mr. González del Valle, who is no longer the
Secretary-General of the Union of Journalists of Paraguay, was invited to meet
with the representative of the Director-General of the ILO but did not come.
1. 18 As regards the arrest of Mr. Aldo Zuccolillo, Director of the newspaper
ABC Color, for permitting publications on trade union events, the authorities
of the Ministry pointed out that the reason for the arrest was not that given
by the complainant but rather his systematic and abusive harassment of the
Government. Furthermore, they emphasised that Mr. Zuccolillo had never allowed
the establishment of any trade union in the undertakings of which he is the
owner. Finally, they stated that trade union newspapers which published
articles of a critical nature existed in the country and that such
publications had never been the subject of any penalties or warnings.
1. 19 As regards the arrest of Messrs. Carlos Cuevas and Jorge Alvarenga
Galeano, the authorities of the Ministry stated that they were not trade
unionists, that their detention was not related to trade union matters and
that they were released without legal proceeding being brought against them.
1. 20 As regards the alleged arbitrary dismissal of workers of the América
Textil undertaking following the submission by the trade unions of a list of
demands, the authorities of the Ministry stated that 27 workers were dismissed
in December 1979. In January 1980 a works union requested recognition in the
Ministry but this was refused since of its founding members only 12 were
actually employed (the Labour Code stipulates a minimum number of 30). In any
event, the dismissed workers accepted the legal indemnities. It should be
noted that the América Textil undertaking refused to meet with the
representative of the Director-General of the ILO.
1. 21 As regards the allegations concerning the FRISA S.A. undertaking, the
authorities of the Ministry stated that no undertaking existed with that name.
1. 22 Finally, with respect to the closing down of the Ñandutí radio station,
the authorities of the Ministry denied that the reason for this action was the
transmission of messages from the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers in
Exile. The radio station was closed for political reasons. They stated that in
Paraguay radio stations are not closed down for giving news or messages of a
trade union nature.
Case No. 1275
1. 23 This complaint was presented by the International Confederation of Free
Trade Unions in a communication dated 17 April 1984. The Government sent
certain observations in a communication dated 14 September 1984. The Committee
on Freedom of Association examined the case, as noted earlier, at its meeting
of November 1984, and made the following recommendations which summarise with
sufficient clarity the matters which remained pending (see 236th report,
paragraph 458):
- (a) The Committee expresses the hope that the Labour Court will shortly decide
the points of contention in connection with the renewal of the collective
agreement between the Union of Employees of the Bank of Brazil and this same
bank, which expired on 30 January 1983. It draws attention to the obligation
on both employers and trade unions to bargain in good faith to reach an
agreement and stresses that satisfactory labour relations depend primarily on
the attitudes of the parties towards each other and on their mutual
confidence. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the Labour
Court's decision on this case.
- (b) The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the
judicial appeal concerning the dismissal of Messrs. Rolando Duarte, Adolfo
Virgili y Guillermo and Guillermo Cáceres, members of the Union of Employees
of the Bank of Brazil.
1. 24 The Government had sent copies of certain documents concerning the alleged
dismissals, but had not sent the text of the judgement. Neither had it sent
the text of the judicial decision on the points of contention related to the
renewal of the collective agreement.
1. 25 During the mission we were able to gather the following information on
these various matters.
1. 26 The authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour provided the text of
the decision of the Labour Appeal Court dated 27 December 1984 upholding the
claims of the Union of Employees of the Bank of Brazil concerning the points
of contention regarding the renewal of the collective agreement. The
management of the Bank of Brazil and leaders of the Federation of Bank
Employees pointed out that the Bank of Brazil and the trade union of this
institution had recently signed a new collective agreement.
1. 27 As regards the alleged dismissal of Messrs. Roland Duarte, Adolfo Virgili
and Guillermo Cáceres, members of the Union of Employees of the Bank of
Brazil, the leaders of the Federation of Bank Employees who were interviewed
stated that these dismissals were illegal since they violated the provisions
of section 285 of the Labour Code (maintenance of the employment relationship
during the settlement of labour disputes procedure). They pointed out that
although the undertaking claimed that the dismissals were made in order to
reduce costs they were, in fact, due to trade union activities. Messrs.
Virgili and Cáceres were very active members of the trade union and Mr. Roland
Duarte was its former Deputy Secretary-General. Furthermore, if the argument
concerning the reduction of costs were true, the Bank could have dismissed
other persons since 20 workers were nearing retirement and their departure
from the undertaking would not have prevented them from receiving their legal
retirement benefits. In the same way, when the arbitration award was made
concerning the points of contention in the new collective agreement, and which
upheld the claims of the trade union, the undertaking dismissed two further
members.
1. 28 The management of the Bank of Brazil denied that the dismissal of Messrs.
Duarte, Virgili and Cáceres was of an anti-trade union nature or related to
collective bargaining. All the workers of the Bank were members of the trade
union and the dismissed workers were not members of the executive board of the
trade union. The dismissal of the workers in question was due to
administrative reasons and not to a reduction in costs and the workers
concerned received the compensation prescribed by law. Subsequent to these
measures there was only one other dismissal, that of a worker in another
branch of the Bank, and the departure from the undertaking of a secretary by
mutual agreement. The secretary went to work in another banking institution.
1. 29 The authorities of the Ministry stated that no definitive ruling had been
issued concerning the dismissals and that the judiciary had indicated that
such a ruling was imminent.
Cases Nos. 1328 and 1301
1. 30 It appears appropriate to treat these two cases together and in the
above-mentioned order because of the close relationship which exists between
specific aspects of these cases and a full understanding of the matters in
question.
Case No. 1328
1. 31 The complaint appears in a communication from the Latin American Central
of Workers (CLAT) dated 6 April 1985. The Government has still not furnished a
reply.
1. 32 The CLAT alleges in particular that the authorities have limited the right
of the National Union of Building Workers (SINATRAC) to elect its
representatives in full freedom.
1. 33 More precisely, the CLAT alleges that the Labour Directorate stated in a
communication of September 1984 that the extraordinary assembly held on 11
March 1984 to replace the Secretary-General of SINATRAC, Mr. Milciades Giménez
Díaz for failure to fulfil his duties, was null and void for procedural
reasons. According to the complainant, the real reason for this measure was
that the above-mentioned trade union leader supported the anti-trade union
policy of the Government. CLAT encloses a copy of the communication from the
Labour Directorate (dated 19 June 1984) in which it is stated that SINATRAC
"should have justified previously that it had observed the provision of
Article 6 of its by-laws. Thus the copy of the ABC newspaper presented
contains only information of a journalistic nature which cannot be considered
as the convocation of an assembly of its members which would have legal
force".
1. 34 CLAT adds that the ordinary general assembly of SINATRAC which had been
called by the trade union executive for 14 October 1984 was suspended by the
authorities. CLAT includes a copy of a communication from the Labour
Directorate dated 31 October 1984 stating that those who called the assembly
"were not accredited members of the trade union and thus are not empowered to
call an assembly".
1. 35 CLAT adds that the ordinary general assembly was then convened for 2l
October 1984; it took place in normal conditions with the members of the union
and presented in good time its request to the Labour Directorate for
recognition of the executive committee. However, this request was rejected on
the grounds that "an executive committee had already been recognised on the
same date" when in fact - the complainant goes on - this had occurred without
the convening of an assembly or the observance of any of the necessary
requirements and within a period of 24 hours. As a consequence, a complaint
was lodged which was not answered, thus preventing a discussion of the matter
in other bodies, including in the courts (it should be noted that CLAT sends
as an annexure a communication from the Labour Directorate which implicitly
refers to the possibility of lodging an administrative appeal).
1. 36 CLAT concludes by pointing out that the leader recognised by the
authorities does not represent the working classes and has always acted like a
vigilante against the interests of his trade union comrades.
1. 37 In order to obtain information on this complaint, which basically deals
with the rift which occurred in the executive committee of SINATRAC and its
consequences, we consulted the representatives of both groups as well as the
competent authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour.
1. 38 We met with Messrs. Lino Gómez, Gregorio Ojeda and Melanio Morel, who
stated that they were respectively Secretary-General, Assistant
Secretary-General and Financial Secretary of SINATRAC. These persons belong to
the group which presented the complaint to the ILO. They furnished us with
various documents to support and supplement their oral statements.
1. 39 According to the information provided, during the extraordinary assembly
2. of 11 March 1984 the question was implicitly raised of unionising the workers
of the Yaciretá dam and the private firm which was constructing the future
plant of ACEPAR (Paraguayan Steelworks). All those present supported this
action by the trade union although the Secretary-General, Mr. Melcíades
Giménez Díaz, opposed it. The latter, having refused to read a document which
was given to him concerning this matter, decided to leave the meeting
accompanied by the Clerk, Mr. Sixto Fleitas. In the circumstances, the
participants decided to elect Mr. Lino Gómez (who until then had been the
Assistant Secretary-General) as the new Secretary-General. He was to exercise
his mandate until the month of October 1984, when the term of the executive
committee was due to expire. At the same time, the assembly reorganised the
executive committee and sent the corresponding notice to the Labour
Directorate with a view to obtaining recognition of this committee.
1. 40 In reply, they were informed in a note of 19 June 1984 of the legal ruling
2. of 7 June concerning the need to fulfil, before the holding of the assembly,
the statutory regulations concerning the publication of the convocation in a
newspaper. In a note of 3 July 1984, issued by the new executive committee, it
was explained to the authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour that it
had not been possible to publish the convocation due to lack of money but that
the news item which had appeared in the ABC Color newspaper compensated for
this shortcoming. Furthermore, approximately 80 members of the trade union out
of a total of 120 had attended the assembly, which was well beyond the
required quorum. Despite these explanations, the Labour Directorate issued a
resolution dated 6 September 1984 which rejected the recognition of the
executive committee and based its decision on the failure to observe the
above-mentioned statutory provision.
1. 41 In these circumstances, the complainants add, the failure to recognise
this new Committee implied that the previous committee remained in existence.
Seven members of this committee (out of a total of 11), including Messrs. Lino
Gómez and Gregorio Ojeda, decided to convene an ordinary assembly of the trade
union for 14 October 1984. This decision was communicated to the Ministry on
1. 26 September and the convocation was published in a newspaper in accordance
with the union's by-laws. In the same way notification was sent to the police
which replied that the assembly would have to be postponed until 21 October.
For its part, the Legal Department of the Labour Directorate decided that the
applicants were not accredited members (of the executive committee) of the
trade union, and thus could not convene the assembly. This decision was
communicated to them on 31 October. The assembly took place on 21 October and
recognition of the elected executive committee was requested in a note dated
1. 24 October 1984. The competent authority of the Ministry replied by providing
the text of another legal opinion which stated that, by Resolution No. 1717
dated 17 October 1984, recognition had already been granted to another
executive committee of the trade union and that for this reason the
applicants' request could not be accepted.
1. 42 According to the complainants, what had in fact happened was that without
their knowledge, another assembly had been held on 13 October 1984 which had
been called by the members of the original executive committee who had
remained in a minority. In the extraordinarily short period of four days,
which is unprecedented, this new committee was recognised whereas normally
such a process requires more than one month. This would also explain the
instructions from the police to postpone the date of the assembly from 14 to
1. 21 October.
2. 43 The complainants state that they have never been able to obtain a copy of
the text of the formal resolution which rejects their request for recognition
of the executive committee elected at the assembly of 21 October 1984. They
have presented and verified before the Ministry the request for recognition of
this executive committee and the request for the annulment of the recognition
granted to the committee elected on 13 October 1984 (notes dated 28 November
1. and 23 January 1985). In the note dated 28 November it is stated that the
  - so-called assembly of 13 October did not legally take place, that those who
2. convened it did not have the power to do so, that they did not publish the
convocation notice as required, that they did not have rosters available, were
not up to date in their contributions and had not distrubuted circulars
concerning the convocation.
1. 44 In reply, the Ministry confirmed that the only legal recourse against the
resolution to deny recognition in this case is the administrative procedure
for disputes, in accordance with section 297 of the Labour Code (note dated 15
February 1985). According to the complainants, the initiation of this
procedure requires access to the text of the formal resolution which they have
unsuccessfully requested.
1. 45 At the meeting held with Mr. Milcíades Giménez Díaz, who claimed to be the
Secretary-General of SINATRAC, he referred to various aspects of the assembly
1. of 11 March 1984. First of all, the resignation presented in February by Mr.
Gregorio Ojeda, who was a member of the executive committee elected in 1982,
was accepted. During the same assembly Mr. Pedro Zárate also presented his
resignation. During the discussions a written note of accusation against Mr.
Gímenez was presented by the complainants requesting his resignation as
Secretary-General. It was suggested that he should read this note publicly but
Mr. Gímenez refused to do so since the matter was not included on the agenda
of the assembly. The text of the agenda was shown to us by Mr. Gímenez; it
reads as follows: "(1) Report and appraisal of the financial situation by the
Secretary of Finances for the 1983 exercise. (2) Election of a Deputy
Secretary of Records and Relations, a Deputy Secretary of Finance and a
Secretary responsible for the organisation of activities. (3) Election of four
substitute members." Those who were insistent that the note should should be
read included in particular Mr. Carlos Castillo, former Secretary-General, who
had ceased to be a member of the trade union following his failure to pay
trade union dues.
1. 46 As a result of the rising tempers of the persons present and the resulting
confusion, Mr. Gímenez Díaz decided to withdraw from the assembly, accompanied
by the Clerk and the two inspectors of the Ministry of Justice and Labour who
had been invited by the executive committee. The two latter officials informed
the members that the assembly was suspended and that any decision taken by
those present would have no legal effect. Approximately 50 persons remained in
the meeting out of a total of 61 participants. The membership of the trade
union at that time was 120. In the meeting which continued it was not possible
to adopt any decision respecting the election of a new Secretary-General and
the reorganisaion of the executive committee since these items were not
included on the agenda.
1. 47 Furthermore, Mr. Gímenez continued, it cannot be said that seven members
out of a total of 11 of the executive committee elected in 1982 had remained
as members of one of the two factions. In fact two of the seven had resigned
or abandoned their functions before the assembly of 11 March 1984 (Florencio
Benítez, Secretary of Records and Relations, Eustaquio Portillo, Deputy
Secretary of Finances). The following therefore remained as members of the
dissident group: Lino Gómez, Gregorio Ojeda, Justo Pastor Sosa, Pedro Zárate
and Martín Chamorro. In Mr. Gímenez Díaz's group there remained, in addition
to the latter, Sixto Fleitas, Antonio de la Cruz Benítez and Efigenio
Fernández. According to Mr. Gímenez, this proves that the dissidents did not
have the support of the majority of the members of the original executive
committee to convene a subsequent extraordinary assembly of the trade union.
1. 48 After the division occurred, Mr. Gímenez Díaz adds, that the premises of
SINATRAC - an office in the headquarters of the Paraguayan Confederation of
Workers - continued to be occupied by his group, which continued its trade
union activities. With a view to normalising the situation, it was decided to
hold an assembly for the reorganisation of the trade union, which took place
in Villa Hayes on 13 October 1984. This city was selected since most of the
members were employed there in the construction of the future ACEPAR plant.
More than 200 members participated in the assembly. Circulars announcing the
convocation were pinned up and distributed at the worksite. The assembly
elected a new executive committee of which Mr. Gímenez Díaz is the
Secretary-General. This committee was recognised by the Ministry of Justice
and Labour.
1. 49 In our conversations with the competent authorities of this Ministry we
received documentation and we were given the following information on the
events which had occurred. It was stressed that the situation was a confused
one concerning an internal dispute between the members of the executive
committee of SINATRAC.
1. 50 On 11 March 1984 an extraordinary general assembly convened by the
executive committee was held in the headquarters of the Paraguayan
Confederation of Workers to examine the financial balance sheet presented by
the Financial Secretary and to fill certain vacant posts on the committee.
After the approval of the balance sheet and as the chairman was introducing
the second item on the agenda (appointment to vacant posts), a group headed by
Carlos Castillo, Gregorio Ojeda and Pedro Zárate provoked the incidents in
question, disregarding the warnings made by the labour inspectors to keep to
the items on the agenda. As the situation deteriorated, the inspectors
withdrew from the premises, as did the president and secretary of the meeting,
and the delegates of the CPT.
1. 51 Later the group directed by Carlos Castillo, Gregorio Ojeda and Pedro
Zárate held a so-called extraordinary general assembly, set up a so-called
executive committee and requested its recognition before the Labour
Directorate. This request was denied by Resolution No. 1502 dated 6 September
1. 1984 Since that date the trade union had been without leadership. In these
circumstances and with a view to the legal reorganisation of the trade union,
a SINATRAC reorganisation committee was set up whose members were Milcíades
Gímenez Díaz, Sixto Fleitas and Antonio de la Cruz Benítez, who had been
members of the executive committee elected in January 1982. This
reorganisation committee, with the collaboration of the CPT, called a general
assembly on 1 October 1984 for the reorganisation of the trade union, to be
held on 13 October in Villa Hayes. The convocation was not published in a
newspaper for lack of money but notification was given in circulars, as
verified by the labour inspectors. The assembly was monitored by officials of
the Labour Directorate and proceeded to elect a new executive committee of the
trade union which was duly recognised by the authorities by Resolution No.
1. 1717 dated 17 October 1985.
2. 52 As regards certain specific points, the labour authorities provided the
following information. The executive committee elected in the assembly of 11
March 1984 was not recognised because it had not complied with the provisions
of Article 6 of the SINATRAC by-laws, which read as follows: "The convocation
of an assembly of members shall be communicated to members by means of
circulars distributed at the workplaces and in the work committees and by
publication in a newspaper of the capital at least eight days beforehand." As
regards the request for recognition of the executive committee resulting from
the assembly of 21 October 1984 and the annulment of the recognition granted
to the committee elected at the assembly of 13 October 1984, the Labour
Directorate considers that this is an appeal for annulment requiring the
Directorate to annul a decision which it had previously taken. This kind of
appeal is not applicable in such cases and is not included in any regulation
for these purposes. What is applicable under the established procedure (Decree
1. No. 3696 dated 24 March 1964) is a direct appeal to the courts through the
administrative procedure for disputes. The Ministry of Justice and Labour
communicated the legal decisions to which the complainants refer in the same
way as resolutions against which appeals can be lodged through the
administrative procedure for disputes. Furthermore, mention is made in one of
these decisions of Resolution No. l7l7 which recognises the executive
committee elected on 13 October 1984, which means that the complainants had
been informed of the existence of this resolution and could have lodged an
appeal through the adminstrative procedure for disputes.
1. 53 Finally, the Labour Directorate stressed that it is not certain that
Messrs. Ojeda, Zárate, Castillo and other complainants actually work in the
building industry. On the other hand, it was clear from the work roster of the
Benito Roggio and Sons SA., construction firm that Mr. Milciades Gimenez Diaz
is an employee of this firm.
Case No. 13O1
1. 54 This complaint is contained in communications from the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 6 and 25 September 1984. The
Government representative of Paraguay to the 7lst Session of the International
Labour Conference personally delivered certain information concering this
complaint.
1. 55 In its communication dated 6 September 1985, the ICFTU alleges that on l8
August 1984, when steps were being taken for the establishment of a trade
union, Messrs. Melanio Morel, Gregorio Ojeda, Pedro Zárate, Carlos Castillo
and Nicasio Guzmán, leaders of the National Union of Building Workers
(SINATRAC) were arrested in the ACEPAR iron and steel works by military
officials. In its communication of 25 September 1984, the ICFTU adds that
these leaders were released on lO September, but that they have been dismissed
on the express instructions of the Ministry of Justice and Labour.
1. 56 The documentation presented by the Government representative of Paraguay
to the 7lst Session of the International Labour Conference indicates that the
persons mentioned by the ICFTU do not appear as members of SINATRAC, nor are
they employed in any undertaking.
1. 57 Information on this case was obtained from Messrs. Lino Gómez, Gregorio
Ojeda and Melanio Morel, as well as from the competent authorities of the
Ministry of Justice and Labour. It should be noted that the events occurred in
August 1984, that is, after the executive committee of SINATRAC had split into
two factions during the assembly of ll March of that year.
1. 58 According to Messrs. Gómez, Ojeda and Morel, who were members of the
executive committee elected at that assembly, as well as Pedro Zárate, their
objective was to set up a works committee in the undertaking which was
building the ACEPAR plant. A similar committee had previously been set up in
the Yaciretá worksite. On l8 August 1984, they convened a assembly of workers
in this plant which was to be held at the nearest bus stop to the plant. On
that day, as they were preparing for the meeting, they were warned by the
police that the meeting should not be held. Shortly afterwards they were
arrested by members of the army and remained under arrest until 4 September
1. 1984 when they were released without any proceedings having been brought
against them. They were not informed of the reason for their detention but
were warned not to proceed further with their activities.
1. 59 According to these interlocutors, they had organised works committees on
previous occasions without having requested permission from the authorities.
On such occasions the meetings had been held in the premises of the Paraguayan
Confederation of Workers, which was impossible on this occasion because of the
large number of interested workers (approximately, 2,7OO). They had believed
that the ACEPAR plant, an undertaking which is directed by military staff, was
not situated in a military zone and there was no information or notice
indicating that it was. Finally, they stated that they were not dismissed as a
result of these events because they were not recruited individually under
separate contracts, but collectively as a team on the basis of labour-leasing
contracts. What is certain that since their arrest they have not been able to
obtain contracts with building undertakings as before but only with individual
employers.
1. 6O. According to the authorities of the Ministry of Justice and Labour, the
ACEPAR undertaking is a para-public undertaking, located in a military zone
and is directed by military staff. The assembly to which the complaints refer
was not authorised and for this reason could not be held. As a result they
were arrested by the military forces, without charges being brought against
them, and subsequently released. The Ministry never intervened with a view to
obtaining their possible dismissal. In point of fact the matter is a problem
which should be examined in the context of the rivalry existing between the
two trade union factions to which reference has been made, and the action
carried out by the complainants was designed to obtain new supporters because
of the forthcoming trade union elections.
Case No. 1341
1. 61 This complaint is contained in a communication from the ICFTU dated 24
June 1985. The Government had not replied.
1. 62 The ICFTU alleges that Paraguayan citizens who were offered the
possibility of returning to their country after a long period of forced exile
are being submitted to a strict control by the authorities. The complainant
refers in particular to the case of Mr. Ricardo Esperanza Leiva, former trade
union leader who returned to the country after many years of exile and who has
since been the victim of thorough and constant police supervision in Asunción,
including supervision by motorised police whenever he travels to any part of
the city.
1. 63 The ICFTU states that this type of government measure severely limits the
individual and trade union freedoms of Mr. Esperanza Leiva and even prevents
him from seeking work, which is an indispensable condition to be able to live
and to remain the the country.
1. 64 Finally, the ICFTU requests that steps be taken with a view to the
definitive lifting by the Government of the restrictions affecting exiled
citizens who have returned to the country, in particular, Mr. Esperanza Leiva.
1. 65 During the mission we were able to gather the following information on
this case.
1. 66 Mr. Ricardo Esperanza Leiva stated that under the pretext of guaranteeing
his personal safety he was the victim of constant supervision by the police
who followed him on motor cycles whenever he moved from one place to another.
We were able to confirm the presence of a police motor cycle opposite the
place where we met with Mr. Leiva. According to the latter, the fact that he
is followed everywhere by the police, who also request documentation from
those persons with whom he has contact, makes it impossible for him to find
work, earn his living and therefore makes it difficult for him to remain in
the country. Mr. Leiva said that he had been in exile since 1959, that he was
sentenced to four years of prison in 1961 when he clandestinely entered the
country and joined the Epifanismo political movement. He also pointed out that
he was a member of the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers in Exile, acting as
its Deputy Secretary-General, and that he had been a leader of the Frigorífico
Liebig trade union.
1. 67 The authorities of the Ministry stated that the police surveillance of Mr.
Leiva was designed to guarantee his safety and protect his life, since he had
been a member of the Epifanismo movement, which is a specific, dissident
sector of the Colorado Party headed in 1954 by Epifanio Méndez Fleitas, Chief
of Police responsible for a number of atrocities. The authorities of the
Ministry also pointed out that Mr. Leiva could present his problem to the
Ministry of Labour and that other trade unionists in exile had returned to the
country and were now working.
1. 68 During the meeting with the Minister of Justice and Labour I expressed the
concern felt at the international level and, in particular, within the ILO at
the situation of Mr. Leiva and requested that this situation should be made
known to the Minister of the Interior.
Geraldo von Potobsky.
PERSONS INTERVIEWED
Ministry of Justice and Labour
Mr. Eugenio Jacquet, Minister of Justice and Labour
Mr. Carlos Doldán del Puerto, Director of Labour
Mr. Luciano Mendoza, Chief of the Department of International Standards
Mr. Arsenio Riveros Delgado, Deputy Adviser of the Legal Department of the
Labour Directorate
Mrs. Ilse de Riveros, Regional Director of the Department of Itapúa, Social
Information Branch
Paraguayan Confederation of Workers in Exile (CPTE)
Mr. Julio Etcheverry Espinola, Secretary-General of the CPTE
Mr. Basilio González Hermosilla, Secretary-General of the CPTE
Mr. Pablo E. Aquino, Secretary of International Relations, CPTE
Mr. Eulogio Alvarenga, Secretary responsible for Peasant Affairs, CPTE
Mr. Julián Garay, Secretary responsible for Organisation, CPTE
Mr. Carlos L. Garay González, Secretary responsible for Youth Affairs, CPTE
Mr. Ricardo Esperanza Leiva, Deputy Secretary-General, CPTE (interviewed in
Asunción)
Mr. Marcelino Notario Bernal, Secretary responsible for Organisation, CPTE
(interviewed in Asunción)
Paraguayan Confederation of Workers (CPT)
Mr. Sotero Ledesma, Secretary-General of the CPT
Mr. Porfirio Giménez, Secretary of Records and Correspondence, CPT
Mr. Salvador Vera, Secretary of International Affairs, CPT
Mr. Enrique Benítez, Secretary of Culture and Trade Union Education, CPT
Various other leaders of the CPT.
Federation of Production, Industry and Commerce (FEPRINCO) and the Paraguayan
Industrial Union
Mr. Alirio W. Ugarte Díaz, Presdent of FEPRINCO and other members of the
executive committee
Mr. Gustavo Díaz de Vivar, Representative of the Paraguayan Industrial Union
National Union of Building Workers (SINATRAC)
Mr. Milcíades Giménez Diaz, Secretary-General of SINATRAC (executive committee
recognised by the Ministry of Justice and Labour)
Mr. Lino Gómez, Secretary-General of SINATRAC
Mr. Gregorio Ojeda, Assistant Secretary-General of SINATRAC
Mr. Melanio Morel, Financial Secretary of SINATRAC
Federation of Bank Employees (FETRABAN)
Mr. Víctor Báez Mosquera, Secretary-General of FETRABAN
Mr. Humberto Ayala, Secretary of Organisation of FETRABAN
Mr. Carlos Veron, Secretary of Relations of FETRABAN
Mr. Víctor Manuel Rodríguez, Press Secretary of the Trade Union of the Banco
de Brasil and Adviser to the Executive Committee of FETRABAN
Inter-Trade Union Movement of Workers (MIT-Paraguay)
Mr. José Martínez, Organisation and Action Committee of the Inter-Trade Union
Movement of Workers (MIT) Paraguay)
Mr. Gustavo Benítez, Legal Adviser of MIT and the National Co-ordinating
Committee of Workers
Others
Mr. Hugo Roberto Cabrera Alemán, Under-Manager of the Banco de Brasil
Mr. Panulfo Jara Casco, President of Línea de Autobuses 21