Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 12, 1954

Caso núm. 74 (Myanmar) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 04-NOV-52 - Cerrado

A. Analysis of the Complaint

1. 178. In a communication dated 4 November 1952 the complainant alleges that Mr. Thakin Lu-Aye, Vice-President of the Burma Trade Union Congress, applied for a passport on 26 October 1952 to enable him to attend the Non-Govern mental Organisations Conference on United Nations Information held in Manila from 24 to 31 October 1952, but that the Government failed to issue a passport within the necessary time, with a view to preventing his attendance. The complainant contends that this was a violation of the democratic rights and trade union liberties of the working people of Burma and of the working masses of the world.

B. Analysis of the Reply

1. 179. In its reply dated 4 November 1953 the Government states that Mr. Thakin Lu-Aye applied for a passport to enable him to go to Manila and thence to Austria to report to the World Federation of Trade Unions. The Government decided to issue a passport if he executed an Indemnity Bond requiring him or his sureties to reimburse the Government the cost of his repatriation if that should prove necessary. The Government states that this is the normal procedure where the Government is not satisfied as to the financial status of applicants for passports. A member of the complaining organisation's executive, who called at the Foreign Office to collect the passport, refused to take it when the Government insisted on the execution of an Indemnity Bond. The Government denies that trade union rights have been infringed, pointing out that the trade union official concerned is subject to common law and practice like other citizens and that, as laid down in Article 8 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948, which the Government has not ratified, workers and employers and their respective organisations shall, like other persons or organised collectivities, respect the law of the land when exercising the rights provided for in that Convention.

C. C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 180. The Committee expressed the view in a previous case-that relating to France (Tunisia) (Case No. 40)-that, although the refusal to grant a passport or visa is a purely domestic matter in each State, such action may in certain cases have repercussions on the exercise of trade union rights, and that, more specifically, the right of representatives of national organisations to maintain relations with the international organisations to which their own organisations are affiliated and to take part in the work of those international organisations is a normal corollary of the right of national workers' organisations to become affiliated to international organisations, a right which is an important aspect of trade union freedom.
2. 181. In the present case, however, it appears from the Government's reply that the passport was not refused, but was offered subject to the execution of an Indemnity Bond to cover possible expense of repatriation of the person concerned, this being the normal procedure where the Government of Burma is not satisfied as to the financial status of any citizen who applies for a passport.
3. 182. In view of the explanations given by the Government the Committee, while reaffirming the principle laid down in the Tunisian case and considering it undesirable that provisions such as those of the Burmese law should be so applied as to prejudice freedom of association, considers that the condition imposed by the Government on the issue of Mr. Thakin Lu-Aye's passport was in accordance with the normal law of the land applicable to any citizen under certain financial circumstances, and that the complainant has not offered sufficient proof in support of the allegation that the Government refused the passport with a view to preventing him from attending the Conference in Manila and so violated trade union liberties.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 183. In all the circumstances, therefore, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.