Definitive Report - REPORT_NO109, 1969

1. 71. The complaint presented by the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions is contained in a communication of 6 June 1968, which was forwarded to the ILO by the United Nations. A copy was sent to the Government of the Dominican Republic, which presented its observations on 12 September 1968.
2. 72. The Dominican Republic 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

1. 73. It is alleged in the complaint that on 6 June 1968 the Dominican Government arbitrarily expelled the Christian trade union officer Alfredo Di Pacce, who was carrying out an important trade union mission for the benefit of Dominican peasants and workers. The complainants explain that Mr. Di Pacce had all his papers in order and they request the intervention of the ILO to re-establish respect for human and trade union rights in the Dominican Republic.
2. 74. The Government states in its reply that while Mr. Di Pacce was in the country he enjoyed the traditional hospitality of the Dominicans, but that he abused this hospitality and devoted his time to political activities that were forbidden to him as a foreigner. When his visa expired, the migration authorities therefore decided not to extend his residence permit and they requested him to leave the national territory. In its communication the Government reproduces the Constitutional provisions under which it is the duty of every foreigner to refrain from taking part in political activities on Dominican territory.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 75. The Committee has considered in the past that it was not for the Committee to deal with measures deriving from national legislation concerning aliens, unless these measures had direct repercussions on the exercise of trade union rights.
2. 76. In the present case the Committee observes in this connection that, although the complainants state that Mr. Di Pacce was carrying out a trade union mission, the Government asserts that he was really devoting himself to political activities that were forbidden to him as a foreigner. The Committee also observes that the Government meets the complainants' statement that Mr. Di Pacce was expelled although his papers were in order by maintaining that his visa had expired and that his residence permit was not extended by the authorities.
3. 77. In these circumstances the Committee considers that this is a case of factual questions concerning the period of validity of the residence permit granted to Mr. Di Pacce for his stay in the Dominican Republic-questions moreover on which the complainants and the Government have given versions that appear to be contradictory-and that the Committee is no more competent to express an opinion on these questions than it is on the right of a government to extend or not to extend the validity of a residence permit;

78. The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.