Follow-up information received from Governments - Report No 355, November 2009

Case No 2086 (Paraguay) - Complaint date: 31-MAY-00 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 180. The Committee last examined this case, relating to the trial and sentencing in the first instance for “breach of trust” of the three presidents of the trade union confederations, the United Confederation of Workers (CUT), the Paraguayan Confederation of Workers (CPT) and the Trade Union Confederation of State Employees of Paraguay (CESITEP), Alan Flores, Jerónimo López and Barreto Medina, at its November 2007 session [see 348th Report, paras 142–144]. On that occasion, the Committee regretted the significant amount of time that had elapsed since the initiation of legal proceedings (almost ten years), expressed the hope that the proceedings would be concluded in the near future and requested the Government to inform it of the final ruling handed down in relation to the trade union officials in question.
2. 181. In a communication of 28 May 2008, CESITEP indicates that it lodged an appeal requesting the admission of new facts, which was rejected by the Supreme Court of Justice, and that a motion was filed to terminate the criminal proceedings based on the provisions of the Pact of San José de Costa Rica on the grounds of the duration of the proceedings, which was also rejected. In a communication of 28 August 2008, CESITEP recalls that: (1) the criminal proceedings were initiated 12 years ago; (2) although the ILO recommended the Government to take measures to declare the legal proceedings null and void on the grounds that serious irregularities had been found in those proceedings, the judicial authority has not handed down a decision; and (3) no settlement of the case, which is currently in the second instance, is in sight, undermining the human rights of the officials and notwithstanding the fact that the State Attorney-General’s Office has stated that the proceedings are already time-barred (according to the Attorney-General’s Office, the five-year period provided for in law has already expired). In a communication of 15 September 2008, CESITEP alleges that the Chamber of Appeals ordered that a single decision should be handed down incorporating the motion on time limitation and the final judgement and that this constitutes a serious injustice for the union officials by creating an impediment to the legitimate right to know the court’s decision regarding the motion to terminate the proceedings, denying the right to lodge an appeal against the decision that is handed down, and ultimately denying the right to legal defence.
3. 182. The Committee regrets that the Government has not sent its observations in relation to the communications of CESITEP that date back to 2008. The Committee deeply deplores the significant amount of time that has elapsed since the initiation of legal proceedings (more than 12 years). The Committee urges the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the legal proceedings will be concluded in the very near future and requests it to ensure that the guarantees of due process are respected. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the final ruling that is handed down in this case.