Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Paraguay (Ratification: 1967)

Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Convention. Debt bondage of indigenous communities in the Chaco. In comments made since 1997, the Committee has expressed its concern about the existence of cases of debt bondage in the indigenous communities of the Chaco. The Committee observed that debt bondage constituted a serious violation of the Convention.

The Committee notes the comments made in August 2006 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) – now the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). The ITUC refers to the practice of forced labour in Chaco, the existence of which has been confirmed in the report: Debt bondage and marginalization in the Chaco of Paraguay. The research contained in the report was carried out under the technical cooperation project called Forced Labour, Discrimination and Poverty Reduction among Indigenous Peoples, which is part of the Special Action Programme to combat Forced Labour (SAP-FL) of the ILO.

The report confirms the existence of forced labour practices, specifying “a number of factors” that lead to situations of forced labour encountered by many indigenous workers on the estates of Chaco: the payment of wages to workers that are below the legal minimum; providing them with insufficient quantities of food; charging excessive prices for those provisions available for purchase, there being no access on the estates to other markets or means of subsistence (hunting and fishing); and the payment of partial or total wages in kind. All of these lead to the indebtedness of the worker which obliges him, and in many cases his family as well, to work permanently on the estates.

The ITUC also refers to violations of section 47 of the Labour Code, which provides that a contract will be void when it fixes a salary under the minimum wage or if it involves direct or indirect obligations to buy goods or food from shops, businesses or a place determined by the employer. Articles 231 and 176 of the Labour Code provide that only 30 per cent of wages can be paid in kind, and the value of these goods must be the same as those at the nearest urban settlement. The ITUC asserts that such provisions are not being enforced in practice, thus creating conditions of indebtedness leading the indigenous workers of the Chaco into situations of forced labour.

The report was confirmed during workshops conducted separately with organizations of employers and workers as well as for the Inspection Services. Subsequently the Ministries of Labour and Justice created an Office of Inspection in Mariscal Estigarriba, in the Chaco region in March of 2006. The Committee has learned, however, from information available from the SAP-FL of the ILO that the work was difficult for the two inspectors appointed to this office, who apparently resigned recently because of the limited support they received from Asunción.

The Committee also notes the conclusions of the Tripartite Seminar of September 2007 relating to the need for the Government to establish, by means of decree, a Tripartite Committee on Fundamental Principles at Work and the Prevention of Forced Labour, consisting of six representatives of each group, Employers, Workers and Government. The Committee, once established, would have 60 days to develop an action plan.

In its report of 2006, the Government referred to the report mentioned above and to the three workshops carried out with various social actors, and it also indicated that it planned to create an inter-institutional and cross-sector National Commission responsible for overseeing this issue. The Committee notes that the Government’s report communicated in September 2007 does not contain any information in this regard.

The Committee notes the convergence of the allegations it has been examining since 1997 on the debt bondage to which the indigenous workers of the Chaco region of Paraguay are being subjected. It notes existing provisions of labour law which, if applied, would contribute to the prevention of indebtedness that requires workers to continue working to pay off their debt, and it notes that measures taken to combat the phenomenon seem stalled at present.

The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will communicate information on the various measures taken or envisaged to combat practices by which forced labour is imposed on the indigenous workers of Chaco, in particular information on:

–           the operation of the Office of Inspection in Marsical Estigarriba, providing copies of inspection reports that have been prepared by that Office; and

–           the creation of the National Tripartite Committee on Fundamental Principles and the Prevention of Forced Labour and its operation, and the communication of a copy of the action plan once it has been adopted.

Article 25. Penalties for the exaction of forced labour. The Committee recalls that by virtue of Article 25 of the Convention, criminal sanctions shall be imposed, and strictly enforced, upon those found guilty of having imposed forced labour. The Committee requests the Government to communicate information about the measures taken or planned to ensure the application of Article 25 of the Convention, including copies of relevant judgements.

Article 2(2)(c). Obligation to work imposed on non-convicted detainees. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 39 of Act No. 210 of 1970, which provides that work shall be compulsory for detainees. Section 10 of the above Act defines detainees as not only convicted persons, but also persons subjected to security measures in a prison establishment. The Committee recalled that persons who have been detained but not convicted shall not be obliged to carry out any type of work.

The Committee notes the Draft Code on the Execution of Sentences, communicated by the Government in its report of 2006. Sections 127, 68 and 69 of the Draft Code, read together, provide for the obligation to work of convicted persons, those sentenced to a term of imprisonment pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court. If these provisions are adopted they would be in compliance with Article 2(2)(c) of the Convention under which work or service can only be imposed on an individual by virtue of a conviction in a court of law. The Committee notes, however, that section 34 of the Draft Code states: “Provided they are compatible with the status of persons as detainees, do not contradict the principle of presumption of innocence, and are more favourable and useful for protecting said persons, the provisions relating to the living conditions and standards of conduct of Title III shall apply.” The Committee observes in this respect that Title III, Chapter 7, of the Draft Code contains provisions relating to compulsory work by convicted persons which, by virtue of section 34, could be applied to detainees. It would be necessary, in order to eliminate the possibility of imposing work upon those who are in preventive detention, that this be explicitly prohibited, with the clarification that the detainee could work if he so requested.

The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will be able to indicate that the national legislation has been brought into conformity with the Convention, and that it will communicate a copy of the Code on the Execution of Sentences once it has been adopted.