Definitive Report - Report No 375, June 2015

Case No 2648 (Paraguay) - Complaint date: 28-MAY-08 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant organizations allege acts of violence against a woman member

1. 429. The Committee examined this case at its May 2014 meeting and presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 372nd Report, paras 498–507, approved by the Governing Body at its 321st Session (June 2014)].
2. 430. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 30 October 2014.
3. 431. 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 432. In its previous examination of the case, in May 2014, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 372nd Report, para. 507]:

The Committee again strongly urges the Government to keep it informed with regard to the investigation carried out following the complaint lodged with the national police concerning the physical assault against the worker, Ms Juana Erenio Penayo.

1. 433. The complainant organization had attached to its complaint a copy of the complaint lodged with the national police by the trade union member. According to the complaint she was pushed and punched.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 434. In its communication of 30 October 2014, the Government states that the complaint of physical assault lodged against a former manager of the company Cañas Paraguayas, SA (CAPASA) by Ms Juana Erenia Penayo de Sanabria is filed under police case file No. 1265/08 of 19 May 2008. The Government states that the Public Prosecutor’s Office has no record of a complaint involving Ms Juana Erenia Penayo de Sanabria and/or the former manager, and specifies that by way of note No. 249/13 of 23 March 2013 the national police headquarters indicated that the complaint of physical assault did not give rise to a police investigation, as it was an offence punishable exclusively through private prosecution, in accordance with article 110(2) of the Criminal Code: “the criminal prosecution of the matter shall depend on a request by the victim …”. Furthermore, the Government has sent a copy of a note from the executive management of the company, indicating that Ms Juana Erenia Penayo de Sanabria is on the employee payroll and is working as a machine operator in the packaging section of the company.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 435. The Committee recalls that the allegations that were still pending in this case related to the physical assault against a woman worker, member of the trade union, Ms Juana Erenia Penayo de Sanabria, by a former manager of the company (the complainant organization enclosed with its own complaint a copy of the complaint lodged with the national police, alleging violence at the workplace of a certain severity).
2. 436. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the member in question is still working at the company and that the complaint of physical assault lodged by Ms Juana Erenia Penayo de Sanabria against a former manager of the company (police case file No. 1265/08 of 19 May 2008) did not give rise to a police investigation, as it was an offence punishable exclusively through private prosecution, in accordance with article 110(2) of the Criminal Code “the criminal prosecution of the matter shall depend on a request by the victim …”. The Committee notes this information and understands that, while Ms Juana Erenia Penayo de Sanabria lodged a complaint with the national police, she did not lodge a criminal complaint with the judicial authority. Consequently, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this allegation.

The Committee’s recommendation

1. 437. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.