Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 105, 1968

1. 34. In a communication dated 25 August 1967 to the I.L.O the Secretariat of the Permanent Congress for Trade Union Unity of the Workers of Latin America (C.P.U.S.T.A.L.), which has its headquarters in Santiago, Chile, lodged a complaint against the Government of Uruguay alleging that it had banned a meeting of its General Council in Montevideo and had arrested some of the delegates. In two further communications dated 5 and 15 September 1967 the authors of the complaint supplied additional information and also indicated that the National Labour Congress of Uruguay (C.N.T.) was affiliated to their organisation.
2. 35. The three communications mentioned in the previous paragraph were transmitted to the Government by a letter dated 27 October 1967. The Government replied in a letter dated 9 February 1968. At its sessions on 12 and 13 February 1968 the Committee decided to postpone its examination of the case since the Government's observations had arrived too late to be examined on that occasion.
3. 36. On 19 February 1968 the I.L.O received an undated communication from the C.N.T containing allegations to the effect that by forbidding the meeting in question, the Government had violated the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). A copy of this communication was forwarded to the Government.
4. 37. 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

1. 38. The Secretariat of the C.P.U.S.T.A.L states that the General Council of this Organisation was due to be held in Montevideo from 29 August to 1 September 1967 on the invitation of the C.N.T. The purpose of this meeting was " the discussion of problems of trade union unity concerning Latin American workers, and also starting a study of social security in the region ". According to the complaint the C.N.T obtained permission from the Government beforehand and visas were granted to the delegations from the national trade union organisations which were due to attend. On 22 August 1967 the Government issued a decree forbidding the meeting.
2. 39. The complainants state that on 23 August two delegates from a Chilean trade union organisation and a delegate from a Venezuelan trade union organisation, all of them members of the General Secretariat of the C.P.U.S.T.A.L, together with the Technical Secretary, arrived in Montevideo. These persons were, according to the complainants, detained for a number of hours, taken to the airport and expelled from the country.
3. 40. In the complainants' view these events constitute a flagrant breach of international Conventions. They state that the decree forbidding the meeting was " based on false assertions and imputations that had nothing to do with the trade union movement ".
4. 41. The C.N.T claims in the communication mentioned in paragraph 36 above that, in issuing its decree banning the meeting of the General Council of the C.P.U.S.T.A.L, the Government violated the obligations it had assumed by ratifying Convention No. 87 with respect to the right to establish federations, as well as the domestic legislation of Uruguay itself, which protects freedom of association and the right of assembly. The C.N.T states that the proposed meeting intended to concentrate on a discussion of the possibility of forming a continent-wide trade union organisation and was intended to continue on a wider scale the work begun in Brasilia in 1964, when the C.P.U.S.T.A.L was formed. The agenda, according to the C.N.T, comprised a review of the work accomplished by the Permanent Secretariat and of the state of organisation of the trade union movement in Latin America.
5. 42. Replying to the allegations of the Permanent Secretariat of the C.P.U.S.T.A.L, the Government states that the decree of 22 August 1967 was entirely in accordance with the relevant Constitutional and statutory standards. It adds that in Uruguay " the Government is empowered to grant or refuse the necessary permission for the holding of any meeting aimed at making demonstrations or criticisms in favour of or against the policy of a foreign State or its international position or its actions as a body corporate under international law " (section 1 of Act No. 9565 of 2 July 1936). The Government banned the meeting in accordance with the Constitutional provisions which make it responsible for maintaining domestic law and order and also observed the provision of the Constitution which guarantees the right of assembly but authorises the Government, in accordance with the law, to restrict this right in order to guarantee safety and public order.
6. 43. The Government states that, in deciding to impose the ban, account was taken of the background and circumstances of the case, viz. the political aim of the meeting, the affiliations of the delegates, the links between this meeting and the decisions concerning internal subversion and the violent overthrow of governments embodied in the resolutions of the Havana Tri-Continental Conference, the need for strict compliance with Uruguay's international obligations, etc.
7. 44. It adds that, contrary to the assertions of the complainants, permission from the Government to hold the meeting was never applied for or obtained and that no Uruguayan authority granted any visas or authorisations of any kind for the participation of foreign delegates. The delegates did not seek authorisation to enter the country, as most of them were citizens of Latin American countries who would not need to obtain tourist visas.
8. 45. It goes on to state that neither the C.N.T nor any other Uruguayan trade union organisation had asked the Government to revoke the decree and it rejects the charge that it has in any way violated International Labour Conventions. In particular it considers that Convention No. 87 has no connection with the case, which involves the prohibition of a meeting of foreign representatives on national territory.
9. 46. Lastly, the Government declares that none of the representatives who arrived in Montevideo was detained or arrested. As the meeting could not be held, they were told that they should leave Uruguayan territory.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 47. The Committee notes in the first place that there is a contradiction between the information supplied by the complainants and the Government not only as regards the purpose of the meeting but also concerning the actual events giving rise to the complaint. The Government confirms that it took the measure in question but categorically denies that the authorities had given permission for this meeting to be held in Uruguay or for the foreign delegates to enter the country.
2. 48. While the Committee has consistently emphasised the importance it has always attached to the fact that freedom from government interference in the holding or proceedings of trade union meetings constitutes an essential element of trade union rights, as well as to the principle that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof, the actual point at issue appears, in the present case, to be the sovereign right of a country to grant or deny entry to foreigners wishing to enter it. In this respect the Committee has taken the view ever since its earliest reports that it is not called upon to deal with the general question of the status of aliens, which is not covered by International Labour Conventions. In one case the Committee, in accordance with this principle, had to decide not to examine allegations that the diplomatic authorities of one country, by refusing the necessary visas, had prevented the representatives of a trade union Confederation in another country from attending a trade union congress held within territory which was at that time under the jurisdiction of the first country.