Follow-up information requested from Governments - Report No 363, March 2012

Case No 2086 (Paraguay) - Complaint date: 31-MAY-00 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 105. The Committee last examined this case, relating to the trial and sentencing in the first instance for “breach of trust” of the three presidents of the trade union confederations, the United Confederation of Workers (CUT), the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers (CPT) and the Trade Union Confederation of State Employees of Paraguay (CESITEP), Mr Alan Flores, Mr Jerónimo López and Mr Rinaldo Barreto Medina, at its March 2010 meeting [see 356th Report, paras 114–116]. On that occasion, it requested the Government to inform it of the status of judicial proceedings against the trade union officials in question, and to indicate whether any further appeals had been lodged in the case.
2. 106. In a communication dated 21 June 2011, the CESITEP, the CUT, the CPT and the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), state that in these proceedings, which have been going on for more than 15 years, without any reliable factual basis or foundation in criminal law, and which according to the Attorney-General’s Office prescribed in 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the first instance sentences handed down in respect of the union officials in question without informing the complainants of the involvement of the Criminal Division. Due to the alleged violations of due process and human rights, the complainant organizations request that an ILO direct contacts mission be sent to the country.
3. 107. The Committee notes this information and regrets the lack of a response from the Government. The Committee deeply deplores the fact that these proceedings have gone on for more than ten years. The Committee recalls having noted at the time that an ILO mission had visited Paraguay in connection with this case, and having stated on that occasion among other things that “the court of first instance violated the principle of nullum crimen sine lege, which prohibits applying criminal law retroactively, and that the sentence was handed down on the basis of a rule of criminal law promulgated after the acts at issue took place”, and that “the accused have served a substantial part of the terms of imprisonment imposed by the court of first instance” [see 332nd Report, para. 122]. Under these circumstances, it is the Committee’s understanding that the officials in question are, at least for now, at liberty – as the Committee had requested at the time – although a court sentence still hangs over them. The Committee once again reiterates the importance of ensuring that these trade union officials are not subject to criminal sanctions including imprisonment.