According to a statement issued by the Uruguayan Association of Labor Workers, the student occupations “constitute forms of union protest, which far from materializing an illegality, as has been stated by the authorities, constitute, on the contrary, the exercise of a fundamental right”.
“With the occupations, the students claim their right to be heard and also seek to guarantee the fulfillment of other fundamental rights inherent to any democratic State; among them, the right to negotiation and the free expression of thought”, they say.
Eviction mechanism outside the regulations
Likewise, the Association states that it is “greatly concerned” by the fact that the eviction mechanisms are carried out “outside the current regulations.”
In effect, “it proceeds by means of a simple communication from the educational authorities to the Ministry of the Interior, and the latter grants a meager period before the police personnel enter the centers, all without the intervention of the Justice, or of other state organs, whose institutional specialization is the negotiation between parties”.
The Association has become aware of the “invocation of a Decree (supposedly from 2014, whose number is not indicated) on the eviction of occupations of public offices, by virtue of which the illegality of the measure is maintained.”
In this regard they say: “There is no rule of 2014 that addresses the issue. Surely they wanted to refer to Decree 354/2010, but it was repealed by the one in force today on the matter: 281/2020 “.
Thus, a “gross error” has been incurred in basing the alleged illegality on a repealed decree.
Decree 281/2020 regulates article 392 of the Law of Urgent Consideration, and applies, in principle, “to occupations in the workplace, but the rule itself allows its extension to others, such as, for example, the student”.
They indicate that both the aforementioned Decree “of dubious legality, as well as the regulation previously in force establish a minimum of guarantees (although quite limited by the way) consisting of the obligation to go to the Ministry of Labor in order to request its intervention, said portfolio being able to tempt a instance of conciliation without prejudice to ordering the eviction”.
Both regulations establish the possibility of a “negotiation and consequently the authorities are given the opportunity to dispense to their students the treatment inherent to subjects of law, as provided for by international Human Rights standards, and not mere objects of obligations on which the institutional contempt is made to fall, which is reflected in the sending, without further ado, to the police officers to evict them”.
“We hope, with great expectation, that the authorities guide their actions in relation to this issue, appealing to guarantee procedures within the framework of current regulations,” points out the Uruguayan Association of Labor Workers.
