Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 127, 1972

1. 80. The complaint of the World Confederation of Labour is contained in a communication dated 22 December 1970, addressed direct to the ILO. The text of it was transmitted to the Government, which forwarded its observations thereon by two communications dated 5 May and 1 September 1971.
2. 81. Argentina has ratified both 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. 82. The complainants refer to the arrest of two Argentine lawyers, " closely connected with the Argentine trade union movement ", namely Mr. Rodriguez Anido, legal adviser to the regional office of Acción Sindical Argentina for the province of Tucumán, and his assistant, Mr. Salas Correa. These lawyers are said to have been arrested on the occasion of workers' demonstrations which took place in the city of San Miguel de Tucumán in November 1970. At the time the complaint was filed these persons were allegedly being held at the Government's pleasure in Buenos Aires.
2. 83. In its reply the Government gives the following information. Mr. Rodriguez Anido, lawyer, was arrested on 11 November 1970 for incitement, in connection with a demonstration of a political character, to actions disturbing public order and safety during the disturbances which occurred on that date in the city of San Miguel de Tucumán. By Decree No. 2735 of 12 December 1970, his detention at the Government's pleasure became inoperative and he was freed on 15 December of the same year.
3. 84. Mr. Salas Correa, lawyer, was arrested on 14 November 1970, for participating in actions which disturbed public order and safety on 12 and 13 November of the same year in the city of San Miguel de Tucumán. By virtue of Decree No. 2700 of 10 December 1970 his detention during the Government's pleasure became inoperative and he was released.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 85. It would appear from the Government's explanations that the reason for the action taken against these persons was acts constituting a disturbance of public order and safety committed by them during demonstrations which took place in San Miguel de Tucumán and having no direct connection with the exercise of trade union rights. For their part, the complainants, who merely mention that the persons concerned are " closely connected with the Argentine trade union movement ", offer no evidence that there was any breach of freedom of association in this instance.