Informe provisional - Informe núm. 24, 1956

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 210. In its communication dated 4 August 1955 the World Federation of Trade Unions alleges that the police authorities in Rio de Janeiro have arrested Messrs. Ramiro Luchesi, Roberto Moreno, Moacyr Ramos and other trade union leaders. The publishing offices of the Movimento Sindical Mundial and the Gazeta Sindical are alleged to have been attacked by the police.
2. 211. In a letter dated 13 September 1955 the Director-General of the I.L.O informed the complaining organisation of its right to furnish further information in substantiation of its complaint, but it has not presented any further information. The complaint was communicated on 13 September 1955 to the Government of Brazil, which forwarded its observations thereon to the Director-General on 15 May 1956.
   • ANALYSIS OF THE REPLY
3. 212. In its communication dated 15 May 1956 the Government states that the complaint " originates in a mere police measure "-a search of the publishing offices of the two periodicals referred to by the complainant, which the Government described as being of a Communist tendency, made by the police when investigating subversive activities. The Government states that Communist propaganda material was found on the premises, that the search was conducted with proper regard for the legal provisions in force and that those detained received the assistance allowed by law in cases of this kind. The periodicals in question are not, according to the Government, declared organs of the World Federation of Trade Unions. In conclusion, the Government declares that the complaint is without foundation and reaffirms its intention to continue to respect individual rights.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 213. The Government of Brazil ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), on 18 November 1952. The Convention, accordingly, came into force for Brazil on 18 November 1953. The Government of Brazil has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).
   • Allegations relating to the Arrest of Trade Union Leaders
2. 214. The complainants allege that a number of trade union leaders, including Ramiro Luchesi, Roberto Moreno and Moacyr Ramos, have been arrested. In its reply the Government does not state specifically why the persons in question were arrested but implies that the arrests took place in connection with a police investigation of subversive activities having a political connection, declaring that those detained received " the assistance allowed by law in cases of this kind ".
3. 215. In several earlier cases the Committee has been called upon to give a decision with regard to the application of measures which, although of a political nature and not intended to restrict trade union rights as such, might nevertheless affect the exercise of such rights. In the present case the Committee considers that, as the Government does not deny the statement that the persons arrested are, in fact, trade union leaders, their arrest may, even if that were not the intention, have affected the exercise of trade union rights.
4. 216. If, in certain cases, the Committee has concluded that allegations relating to the arrest of trade union militants did not call for further examination, this has been after it has received information from the governments showing sufficiently precisely and with sufficient detail that the arrests were in no way occasioned by trade union activities but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature. The Committee has, moreover, consistently emphasised the importance which it attaches to the principle that it should be the policy of governments to ensure the right of all detained persons to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment.
5. 217. In the present case, noting that the arrests of trade union leaders complained of appear to have been made in connection with an investigation of subversive activities but that the Government has confined itself in its observations to the statement that the persons arrested received " the assistance allowed by law in cases of this kind ", the Committee considers that, before it formulates its final recommendations to the Governing Body on this aspect of the case, it should, while thanking the Government for the observations already presented, request the Government to furnish further information as early as possible as to the precise nature of the activities which led to the arrests being made, as to whether the persons arrested have been released or brought to trial and, in the latter event, as to the nature and outcome of the judicial proceedings taken against them.
   • Allegations relating to the Search of the Premises of the Movimento Sindical Mundial and the Gazeta Sindical
6. 218. It is alleged that the premises of these two publications were " attacked " by the police. The Government states that the police, investigating subversive activities, searched the premises in question, in accordance with the law, and found thereon Communist propaganda material. It adds that the two publications are pro-Communist and are not " declared organs " of the World Federation of Trade Unions.
7. 219. The Committee considers that it is not called upon to examine questions affecting the freedom of the press in general, but that it is concerned only with questions related to the trade union press in particular, in the light of the principle which it has expressed on previous occasions, and especially in Case No. 101 relating to the United Kingdom-British Guiana, "that the right to express opinions through newspapers or publications is certainly an essential element in trade union rights ". In that case, however, the Committee expressed the view that trade union organisations, when issuing their publications, should have regard, in the interests of the development of the trade union movement, to the principles enunciated by the International Labour Conference at its 35th Session " for the protection and independence of the trade union movement and the safeguarding of its fundamental task of advancing the social and economic well-being of the workers ", and, in view of the fact that the complainant had offered no evidence to show that the circulation of trade union publications of a purely occupational nature had been restricted, recommended the Governing Body to decide that the allegations made on this subject did not call for further examination-a recommendation approved by the Governing Body when it adopted the Committee's 14th Report.
8. 220. In the present case, while the complainant does not specifically state that the two publications involved are trade union publications-although their titles would imply that they are trade union newspapers-the Government states not only that they are not "declared organs of the World Federation of Trade Unions" but that they are political in character, in that they are pro-Communist, and that the search made in connection with an investigation into subversive activities revealed the existence on the premises in question of Communist propaganda material.
9. 221. Having regard to the fact that the complaining organisation has confined itself to a statement in a telegram simply to the effect that the premises of the publications were searched and has not availed itself of the opportunity afforded to it to furnish further information in substantiation of its complaint, whereas the Government has made specific statements which make it appear improbable that these publications, whether trade union organs or not, confined themselves to occupational matters, and also to the fact that no evidence has been offered to show that the search effected resulted in any prevention of further publication or of circulation being restricted, the Committee considers that no sufficient evidence has been offered to show that the trade union right to issue publications dealing with occupational questions was infringed in this particular case, and, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.