Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 134, Novembre 1972

1. 39. The complaint of the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) is contained in a communication dated 7 July 1972 addressed direct to the ILO. This complaint was supported by the World Confederation of Labour in a communication dated 17 July 1972. The complaint was transmitted to the Government, which sent its observations thereon in a communication dated 31 August 1972.
2. 40. Ecuador has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), as well as the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 41. The complainants state that when the first Latin American Peasants' Conference on Agrarian Reform, convened and organised by the Latin American Federation of Peasants, was being held at Quito from 26 June to 1 July 1972, Mr. Eduardo Garcia Moure, Deputy Secretary-General of the Latin American Central of Workers, took the floor to open the Conference and analysed the situation of the peasants in Latin America as well as in the process of agrarian reform. He came to the conclusion that the peasants were now worse off than before because the process of agrarian reform remained in the hands of minorities which did not desire a change, and the peasants did not participate in this process.
2. 42. According to the complainants, Colonel Hernán Torres Bonilla, Executive Director of the Ecuadorian Institute of Agrarian Reform and Settlement, who was present at the sitting, interpreted these words as a lack of respect for himself and for the armed forces of his country, "an interpretation" the complainants add "which we can but reject, since at no time was there any reference to any particular situation and certainly not to the situation of Ecuador or its armed forces".
3. 43. The complainants allege that, at the end of the sitting, Colonel Torres Bonilla uttered threats against Mr. Eduardo Garcia Moure and all those attending the Conference. Three days later, continue the complainants, Mr. Eduardo Garcia Moure was arrested by three agents who took him to the headquarters of the political police, where he was questioned, after which he was imprisoned, put in solitary confinement and deported without having the possibility of speaking to fellow members of the Conference or to a magistrate "and without being allowed to fetch his papers and luggage, while all the money he had on him had been confiscated".
4. 44. In its observations the Government confines itself to stating that the reason for which the measures referred to in the complaint were taken was that, by virtue of the legislation in force, foreigners are forbidden to interfere in matters of domestic policy - an offence of which the person concerned had been guilty in criticising the agrarian reform policy of Ecuador.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 45. The Committee notes that the Government refrains from giving any indication concerning the nature of the statement alleged to have been made by Mr. Eduardo Garcia Moure and which in the opinion of the Government would have justified his deportation. The Committee notes that the complainants, for their part, maintain that in his statement Mr. Eduardo Garcia Moure confined himself to generalities and had, at no time, referred to Ecuador or its policy.
2. 46. While admitting that there may be justification for legislation forbidding the interference of foreigners in the internal affairs of the country, the Committee considers that it is important that such legislation should be applied solely for the purposes for which it had been enacted, and that it should not be used in such a way as to impair the free exercise of trade union rights. Such a provision is contained in Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), according to which the law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention.
3. 47. In addition, the International Labour Conference pointed out that the right of assembly, freedom of opinion and expression and, in particular, freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media constitute civil liberties which are essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights.
4. 48. In the present case, the Committee notes that, according to the complainants, Mr. Eduardo Garcia Moure confined himself to referring in general terms to the question which was the subject matter of a legally held conference, whereas the Government, while maintaining that he had interfered in the domestic policy of the country, does not supply any further information on the subject and does not expressly deny the facts as stated by the complainants.