Texts of pending comments

The Committee notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received in 2020, as well as the Government’s reply. The Committee also notes the observations of COHEP, received on 31 August 2021 and the Government’s response to these observations, received on 18 November 2021.

National Labour Inspection Strategy 2018–22. Further to its previous comments on the specific measures taken for the implementation of the National Labour Inspection Strategy, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that it is receiving ILO technical assistance, on which basis the cities of Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula have been established as pilot cities to implement the Strategy, in which labour inspectors from the various regional offices will participate. It also notes that the Government indicates that the priority areas of the Strategy target industry, trade, tourism, mining, transport, agriculture, as well as the informal economy. Regarding the progress made, the Committee notes the Government's indications relating to the training and diploma courses for inspectors on the application of labour law, as well as the provision of work equipment. The Committee also notes COHEP’s observations that: (i) the National Labour Inspection Strategy has been integrated into the Annual Operating Plan of the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security (STSS); (ii) the implementation of the Strategy has been carried out with all the regional inspectors of the General Directorate of Labour Inspection (DGIT), by introducing information workshops, during which the goals were established in an inclusive manner with all staff, taking into account the available resources; and (iii) to date, COHEP has not received an update from the STSS on the current status of the Strategy’s implementation. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the specific measures taken to implement the National Labour Inspection Strategy, as well as on the progress made in pursuit of the established goals.

Article 6 of the Convention. Adequate conditions of service of labour inspectors, including sufficient remuneration to ensure their impartiality and independence from any improper external influences. Further to its previous comments on the remuneration of labour inspectors and investigations launched against them, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the lowest wage paid to a labour inspector is 11,200 Honduran lempiras (equivalent to US$464). The Government also indicates that labour inspectors receive wages graded according to their classification level, based on seniority, five-year bonuses and increments granted. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that on 4 June 2018, it requested budgetary support from the Secretariat of State to cover the wages, as it does not have its own funds to carry out a wage adjustment at the national level. The Committee also notes that COHEP provides information on the budget allocated to the STSS in the general income and expenditure budget for the financial years 2020 and 2021. Regarding the investigations launched against labour inspectors, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government that, in 2018, 2019 and 2020, 74 disciplinary proceedings were undertaken, resulting in 40 complaints being set aside, 24 warnings, 8 suspensions without pay and 2 dismissals. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication regarding the creation of the Technical Inspection Audit, governed by sections 8, 20, 21 and 22 of the Labour Inspection Act. The Government indicates, in this regard, that tripartite efforts are under way to establish the Audit's operating procedure. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information disaggregated by year on the number of complaints received against labour inspectors, indicating the grounds for such complaints, the number of investigations actually launched and their outcomes. It also requests the Government to provide information on the progress made on the functioning of the Technical Inspection Audit. The Committee also requests the Government to step up its efforts and take measures to ensure that the remuneration levels of labour inspectors are in line with those of other public officials carrying out similar functions. It also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the results achieved by these measures, including wage figures for each of the levels of labour inspectors (levels I, II, and III), relative to the wage levels of public officials carrying out similar duties.

Articles 10 and 16. Number of labour inspectors and the performance of a sufficient number of regular visits throughout the country. Further to its previous comments on the progress achieved in the recruitment of labour inspectors, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, to date, labour inspectors have been recruited on the basis of vacancies left by other inspectors who have retired. The Government reports that the DGIT has 169 labour inspectors nationwide, which allows the Committee to observe that there has been no new recruitment since December 2018. The Committee further notes COHEP's observations that labour inspectors have few financial resources allocated to their activities and that the number of labour inspectors is insufficient to meet the national labour inspection needs. Concerning inspection coverage and priority issues for labour inspection, the Government provides information on controls carried out through the various types of labour inspection, envisaged in the Labour Inspection Act (regular, extraordinary and advisory), in workplaces in prioritized sectors throughout the country. The Government also indicates that priority issues for labour inspection include wages, safety and health, child labour and freedom of association, and that priorities are determined on the basis of the number of complaints received and the violations identified through scheduled and advisory inspections. Finally, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the number of regular and extraordinary inspections disaggregated by year and region according to which, in 2019 and 2020, 3,356 regular inspections and 23,252 extraordinary inspections were carried out. It also notes that there was a fall in both regular and extraordinary inspections in the period 2018–20. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the number of labour inspectors is sufficient to secure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspection service. In this regard, it requests the Government to provide information on the efforts made to recruit new labour inspectors, indicating the updated number of active inspectors. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of regular and extraordinary inspections carried out, including in the informal economy. Furthermore, it requests the Government to indicate the resources of the labour inspectorate allocated to labour dispute mediation and the number of cases mediated by labour inspectors each year.

Article 12(1)(a). Scope of labour inspectors’ free access to workplaces liable to inspection. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 15(I) of the Labour Inspection Act provides that labour inspectors are authorized to freely enter any workplace, establishment or place liable to inspection at any time of day or night, provided that work is in progress in the workplace. In this respect, it requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of this requirement. The Committee notes the Government's indication that section 45 of the Labour Inspection Act ensures the employer’s participation in the inspection to ensure equality between the parties, transparency and fairness of the inspection. The Government adds that conducting an inspection in a workplace where no work is in progress would not safeguard these principles and could result in the invalidity of the proceedings, and thereby the ineffectiveness of the inspection and consequent impunity of labour violations. The Committee also notes COHEP's observations that section 33 of the Regulations Implementing the 2019 Inspection Act allows for days and hours to be designated for any type of inspection and provides that, in the event that the workplace to be inspected is not operating on the designated days and times, the labour authority will reschedule the inspection. The Committee notes that the designation of days and times for inspections restricts inspectors' free initiative to enter workplaces. The rescheduling of inspection in the event that the workplace is not operating on the designated days and times also leaves open the possibility that workplaces may close to prevent labour inspectors from verifying compliance with the legal provisions. The Committee recalls that the different restrictions placed in law on inspectors’ right of entry into workplaces can only stand in the way of achieving the objectives of labour inspection as set out in the Convention. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures, without delay, to remove these restrictions to ensure that labour inspectors may enter freely and without previous notice, at any hour of the day or night, any workplace subject to inspection, as provided for in Article 12(1)(a) of the Convention.

Article 12(1)(c)(i). Scope of interviews as an investigation method. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 49 of the Labour Inspection Act, which establishes that, during the inspection, the labour inspector shall question the workers and the employer or their representatives separately and the questions shall only relate to the subject matter of the inspection, in order to avoid possible influence on the replies. The Committee observes that, to date, the provisions of section 49 of the Labour Inspection Act have not been amended. It also notes the Government's indications relating to the mechanism for interviewing the parties, that the questions should be directly related to the inspection and not to matters that do not fall within the labour inspector’s competence, or even less within the labour sphere. The Government adds that, while during extraordinary inspections, the labour inspector only addresses the content of the complaint lodged by the worker or their representative, in regular inspections the inspector has greater freedom in the questions they may ask, provided they stay within their labour-related area of competence. The Committee recalls that, under Article 12(1)(c)(i) of the Convention, labour inspectors shall be empowered to interrogate, alone or in the presence of witnesses, the employer or the staff of the undertaking on any matters concerning the application of the legal provisions. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 49 of the Labour Inspection Act to ensure the conformity of national legislation with the provisions of Article 12(1)(c)(i) of the Convention.

Article 18. Adequate penalties for violations of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government according to which, in 2019, penalties were imposed on 207 companies for a total of 39,359,143 lempiras (equivalent to US$1,629,599), and in 2020, penalties were imposed on 75 companies for a total of 344,220 lempiras (equivalent to US$14,251). The Committee notes that the Government does not refer to the number of violations detected relative to the penalties imposed, or to the nature of the penalties imposed. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information, disaggregated by year, indicating the number of labour law violations identified, the nature of such violations (wages, working time, occupational safety and health, child labour, and others), as well as the number of penalties imposed and the amount of fines paid.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received in 2020, as well as the Government’s reply. The Committee also notes the observations of COHEP, received on 31 August 2021, as well as the Government’s response to these observations, received on 19 November 2021.

Legislation. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a broad discussion and consultation took place between Government representatives, workers, represented by the workers’ confederations, and employers, represented by COHEP, which resulted in the approval of the Regulations Implementing the Labour Inspection Act, through Agreement STSS-350-2019, published in the Official Gazette on 24 February 2020.

Articles 3(1), 5(a), 12(1)(a) and (b), and 18 of the Convention. Obstruction of labour inspectors in the performance of their duties. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on labour inspections during which the police ensured in practice the integrity and security of labour inspectors and their free access to workplaces. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that in 2019 and part of 2020, police assistance was only required during one labour inspection. In this regard, the Government indicates that, although this situation posed a considerable risk to the labour inspector, the relevant penalty procedure was able to go ahead. In response to the Committee’s request for information on the implementation of the Labour Inspection Act, approved through Decree No. 178-2016 of 23 January 2017, the Government indicates that inspections were carried out in coordination with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Police Investigation Department and auditors with expertise in verifying biosafety protocols and that inspection operations were launched in various areas nationwide, in accordance with Government directives. Regarding the imposition of penalties for obstructing the work of labour inspectors, the Government indicates that in 2019, 55 penalties totalling 13,750,000 Honduran lempiras (approximately US$568,909) were imposed and that during the period from 1 January to 13 March 2020, 10 penalties totalling 2,500,000 lempiras (approximately US$103,429) were imposed. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of inspections during which the police have ensured the integrity and safety of labour inspectors and their free access to workplaces. It also requests the Government to continue providing information on the number of cases of obstruction of inspections, as well as the number of penalties imposed in this respect.

Article 7. Recruitment and training of labour inspectors. Further to its previous comments on the recruitment procedure and training courses for labour inspectors, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) appointments of labour inspectors are made in accordance with job profiles; (ii) candidates’ CVs are sent to the General Directorate of the Civil Service, which ensures the suitability of candidates by means of a pre-appointment assessment, in accordance with sections 63 and 64 of the Regulations Implementing the 2009 Civil Service Act; and (iii) following their appointment, inspectors are trained by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the Human Resources Subdivision is the office in charge of recruiting labour inspectors. Noting that section 63 of the Regulations Implementing the Civil Service Act provides that the suitability assessments are determined by the General Directorate of the Civil Service and the Human Resources Subdivision, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the assessment methods used to verify candidates’ skills for the performance of labour inspection duties.

With regard to training courses for labour inspectors, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the various training courses carried out in 2019 and 2020, including the second national training day on the Labour Inspection Act, which included all labour inspectors at the national level, training on labour law provided to 30 labour inspectors from different areas of the country in the framework of the FUNDAPEM project, "Strengthening labour inspection and workers’ organizations to better protect labour rights in Honduras", and the training on labour rights, child labour and occupational safety and health, carried out in coordination with World Vision Honduras, which included an average of 120 inspectors from different regional offices. The Committee further notes COHEP’s observations on the content of this training, the drafting and review process of which involved the participation of employers’ and workers’ representatives. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the training given to labour inspectors for the performance of their duties, indicating the duration of training and education courses, the subjects covered and the number of inspectors involved.

Article 11. Adequate financial and material resources, including transport facilities. Further to its previous comments on the material conditions of the inspection services and the reimbursement of the expenses incurred by inspectors in the performance of their duties, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that the labour inspectorate has 20 regional offices that are suitably equipped to provide inspection services. The Government indicates that 7 of the 20 inspection offices have vehicles to carry out regular and advisory inspections. With regard to the reimbursement of expenses incurred by inspectors in the performance of their duties, the Government indicates that no claims were submitted. The Committee notes, in this respect, that only 7 of the 20 labour inspection offices throughout the country have vehicles. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the 20 labour inspection offices in the country have the necessary means of transport for the performance of their duties, in the absence of suitable means of public transport. It also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the progress achieved in the implementation of these measures.

Article 13. Preventive duties of the labour inspectorate. Further to its previous comments on the requirement for labour inspectors to consult the relevant experts before ordering the adoption of occupational safety and health (OSH) measures, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under section 12(9) of the Labour Inspection Act, the issuance of reports by qualified experts is a requirement prior to the adoption of any of the safety measures provided for in section 59(2) of the same Act. The Government adds that the restrictive measures contained in section 59(2) of the Labour Inspection Act result in economic prejudice to the workplace and therefore require the labour inspector to have a broad and clear picture before ordering a measure that may unnecessarily and unfairly harm an undertaking. The Committee notes that section 59 of the Labour Inspection Act establishes the requirement to order immediate corrective or preventive measures in the event of danger or imminent risk to safeguard the life, physical integrity and health of workers or the premises of the undertaking. These measures include the total or partial suspension of the workplace’s activities and the restriction of workers’ access to part or all of the workplace until the necessary safety measures have been taken to prevent the occurrence of an accident. In this regard, in its 2006 General Survey, Labour Inspection, paragraph 117, the Committee indicates that measures, such as suspending work, closure of the establishment, or evacuation of premises, are intended principally to ensure protection of workers. Indeed, the requirement of an expert opinion before taking OSH measures, in the event of danger or imminent risk, delays the timely corrective or preventive measures, thereby putting workers’ safety and health at risk. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that labour inspectors are effectively empowered to order measures with immediate executory force to eliminate imminent danger to the safety and health of workers.

Article 14. Notification of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease to the labour inspectorate. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the General Directorate of Labour Inspection (DGIT) has electronic platforms for the notification of industrial accidents in undertakings. The Government adds that, through the implementation of the National Inspection Strategy, it seeks to cover the sectors with the highest potential risk of accidents and to conduct intensive training sessions for employers on the scope and effects of the requirement to notify industrial accidents. With regard to the requirement to notify the labour inspectorate of cases of occupational disease, the Committee notes the Government's indication that the method and time limits established in the Labour Inspection Act are applicable. In relation to the method, the Government refers to the formal notices of summons, in which the identified labour law violations are recorded and, in relation to the time limit, it refers to the time limit granted by the inspector to the employer to compensate for the prejudice caused. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the notification mechanism for occupational diseases established in the law, indicating the relevant sections. Also noting the Government’s indication that the DGIT has electronic platforms for the notification of industrial accidents, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of industrial accidents and occupational diseases duly notified to the labour inspectorate, as well as the number of fatalities.

Article 15(c). Confidentiality of the source of complaints. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate whether the inspection order, required under section 43 of the Labour Inspection Act, had to specify that the objective of the inspection was to investigate a complaint. In this regard, COHEP indicates that the reports prepared by inspectors must contain the requirements established in section 41 of the Labour Inspection Act, their wording must be directly related to the facts that are the subject of the inspection, detailing the documents submitted to the inspectors and that served as the basis for their inspection, and that, in the event that the report contains statements, the names of the persons who gave testimony and their personal details must be mentioned. The Committee notes with regret that the Government does not refer to this point in its report. Regarding measures taken to ensure the confidentiality of the source of complaints, the Government indicates that, in the event that a worker does not wish to provide personal information for fear of reprisals, the DGIT has implemented electronic, telephone or face-to-face complaint mechanisms in which it is not necessary to provide the complainant's personal information. The Government adds that the DGIT does not require the complainant’s personal details to institute an investigation process through a scheduled inspection or advisory inspection. However, it indicates that, in the case of an unscheduled inspection, the complainant’s details are essential, as this type of inspection seeks redress for the rights of a specific worker. The Committee notes that, notwithstanding the complaint mechanisms implemented in practice, which do not require the complainant’s personal details to be provided, the Labour Inspection Act does not guarantee the principle of confidentiality regarding the origin of complaints and denunciations and the possible link between the complaint and the inspection visit. Indeed, the Committee notes the failure thus far to amend sections 40(2), 45, 49 and 53 of the Labour Inspection Act, to which the Committee referred in its last comment, which limit the need to treat as absolutely confidential the origin of any complaint and the fact that the inspection visit was made in consequence of the receipt of such a complaint. The Committee recalls that the main purpose of the provisions contained in Article 15(c) of the Convention is to ensure that workers are protected against any risk of reprisals by the employer, should the labour inspectorate take action against employers as a result of their complaint. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to make the necessary legislative amendments to ensure the confidentiality of complaints, and to supply a copy of the legislation adopted in this respect.

Article 17. Prompt legal or administrative proceedings. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to sections 48 (scheduled inspection), 36, 37 and 38 (advisory inspections), 54 (granting of a period of time to remedy the shortcomings or breaches) and 58(1) (definitive archiving of proceedings in case of remedy of violations) of the Labour Inspection Act, which limit the discretionary power of labour inspectors to immediately institute or recommend judicial or administrative proceedings in case of violation of the legal provisions. In response to its previous request, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Labour Inspection Act seeks the voluntary remedy of a labour law violation before the application of an administrative penalty. The Government notes that the granting of periods of time or the provision of technical advice does not limit the inspector’s power to ensure the effective enforcement of labour regulations, as the inspector is given enough leeway to assess the complexity of the case and the prejudice caused and, on that basis, to grant more stringent periods of time to ensure prompt compliance with the law and the redress of workers’ rights. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the power provided for in Article 17(2) of the Convention consists of the possibility of warning and advising, instead of instituting or recommending proceedings, and that such a possibility should be left to the discretion of labour inspectors. The granting of periods of time and the provision of technical advice limit the inspectors’ discretion to immediately institute or recommend judicial or administrative proceedings in cases of violations of legal provisions, thus undermining their role in enforcing labour law. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that it shall be left to the discretion of labour inspectors to institute judicial proceedings immediately, without previous warning, and to limit any exceptions to such discretion, so as not to undermine the effectiveness of the labour inspection’s activities in securing compliance with the legal provisions relating to working conditions and the protection of workers while engaged in their work.

Articles 20 and 21. Publication and communication to the ILO of an annual report on the activities of the labour inspection services. The Committee has repeatedly requested the Government to publish and communicate to the ILO annual reports on the work of the labour inspection services. The Committee notes with regret that it has not received the annual inspection report. In this respect, the Government indicated that it had informed the Director-General of Inspection that the information required under Article 21 of the Convention would be requested from him by the end of the current year. With regard to its request for information on the implementation of the Simplified National Registration System for Employers (SRNSP), the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the system is in a trial period and that its purpose, requirements, procedure and time limits are established in the Labour Inspection Regulations (sections 4, 5 and 6). The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on progress in the implementation of the SRNSP. Finally, it requests the Government to make every effort to ensure, without delay, that annual inspection reports are published and submitted to the ILO in accordance with the requirements of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Convention.

The Committee takes note of the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received on 31 August 2021, and of the Government’s reply. It also takes note of the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2021, relating to matters examined in the present observation.

Trade union rights and civil liberties

The Committee recalls that: (i) the Committee on the Application of Standards examined the application of the Convention in 2018 and 2019 and noted with serious concern the allegations of anti-union violence, in particular physical aggression and murders, as well as the absence of convictions against the perpetrators of the offences, which created a situation of impunity that heightened the climate of violence and insecurity; (ii) in May 2019, a direct contacts mission took place and a tripartite agreement was signed which, inter alia, provided for the creation of a national committee to combat anti-union violence; and (iii) in September 2019, the Office carried out a technical assistance mission to support the implementation of the agreement and on 18 September 2019 the Committee on Anti-Union Violence was established.

In its previous comment, having expressed its deep concern at the low number of trade unionists who have benefited from protection measures in comparison with the very high number of acts of anti-union violence, the ineffectiveness of such protection measures, the persistence of acts of anti-union violence and the lack of progress in their investigation, the Committee once again urged the Government and all the competent authorities to: (i) comply fully with all elements in the tripartite agreement concerning action against anti-union violence; (ii) ensure the active involvement of all the relevant authorities in the Committee on Anti-Union Violence, especially the Ministry of Human Rights, the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the judiciary; (iii) institutionalize and make effective the participation of the representative trade unions in the National Council for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders; (iv) draw up a special investigation protocol to enable the Office of the Public Prosecutor to examine, systematically and effectively, any anti-union motives behind the acts of violence affecting members of the trade union movement; (v) ensure that the criminal courts give priority treatment to cases of anti-union violence; and (vi) ensure adequate and prompt protection for all at-risk members of the trade union movement.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in respect of progress in investigations and prosecutions relating to specific cases of murders of members of the trade union movement. The Committee observes that: (i) seven cases remain under investigation (the murders of Sonia Landaverde Miranda, Alfredo Misael Ávila Castellanos, Evelio Posadas Velásquez, Juana Suyapa Posadas Bustillo, Glenda Maribel Sánchez, Fredy Omar Rodríguez and Roger Abraham Vallejo) and (ii) five cases remain before the courts (the arrest warrants for the murders of Alma Yaneth Díaz Ortega, Uva Erlinda Castellanos Vigil, José Ángel Flores and Silmer Dionisio George remain to be issued and the conviction against the perpetrator of the murder of Claudia Larissa Brizuela is under appeal). The Government also points to the investigations carried out by the Special Prosecutor for Crimes against Life to shed light on the murder, on 17 November 2019, of Jorge Alberto Acosta Barrientos. The Committee notes with concern the slow progress in the investigations of murders committed almost a decade ago, and the low number of judicial convictions to date. The Committee emphasizes that justice delayed is justice denied.

Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s reiteration that the investigations and legal proceedings relating to the other cases of alleged anti-union violence have been completed and that it therefore provided no new information in this respect.

The Committee notes that, according to the ITUC, impunity continues to prevail since the Government has not been able to provide prompt and adequate protection to trade unionists who received death threats, nor were proper investigations carried out to find and prosecute the perpetrators of anti-union crimes. The Committee notes with deep concern the ITUC report of the murder of Oscar Obdulio Turcios Fúnes, an activist member of the Workers’ Union of the National Autonomous University of Honduras (SITRAUNAH), who died on 13 July 2020 after demanding payment of delayed salaries and overtime.

The Committee also notes the concern expressed by the COHEP in respect of the scant impact of the Committee on Anti-Union Violence and the lack of proactivity on the part of the State authorities in this regard. The COHEP indicates that the Committee on Anti-Union Violence has held only four meetings: one in 2019, two in 2020 and one in 2021, and that, although some agreed points were achieved (such as the exchange of information on protection measures taken in respect of members of the trade union movement who are at risk, and proposals on how to improve the mechanism), the Committee’s rules of procedure and the road map remained to be approved. The COHEP condemns the acts of violence against members of the trade union movement and indicates that it has not received an update on the criminal investigations and proceedings.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, while it is aware of the commitment made with the Committee on Anti-Union Violence and is confident that it will deliver meaningful results in the near future, the COVID-19 pandemic has delayed activities. It also indicates that on 13 July 2021, a meeting was held to reinvigorate the Committee on Anti-Union Violence, for which purpose a road map was presented in respect of which it was agreed that the worker and employer sectors would make comments and suggestions. The Government also indicates that a meeting was held on 3 August 2021 in order to present an annual report on documented cases of anti-union violence and that at that meeting, it was decided, inter alia, to request technical assistance from the ILO in order to present the experience of Guatemala with regard to anti-union violence. While taking due note of the Government’s indication that the pandemic has delayed the activities of the Committee on Anti-Union Violence, the Committee regrets that, three years since its establishment, the Committee on Anti-Union Violence has been unable to make progress towards practical solutions to the serious violations of the Convention which have been observed for many years. The Committee recalls that on various occasions it has underscored the urgent need for the various State institutions to provide the coordinated and priority response required by the situation of anti-union violence prevailing in the country. The Committee emphasizes the essential role that the Committee on Anti-Union Violence can and must play in order to carry out specific tripartite activities relating to anti-union violence and impunity. The Committee considers that the fact that the Committee on Anti-Union Violence is composed of representatives of the Secretariat-General for Government Coordination, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the Ministry for Human Rights and social partners represented on the Economic and Social Council (CES) and that actors in the judicial system are invited to participate should allow the Committee on Anti-Union Violence to foster the necessary synergies among the various institutions and facilitate dialogue with representatives of trade union organizations at risk. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication of its intention to request technical assistance and hopes that this will be provided as soon as possible.

Furthermore, the Committee regrets that no information has been received from the Government relating to protection measures taken in respect of members of the trade union movement who are at risk. The Committee notes that, according to the COHEP, on 20 May 2021 the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes referred to the ILO (MEPCOIT) convened a session to discuss and adopt the work plan and boost the protection mechanism for trade union members and leaders whose physical integrity and life are threatened.

Expressing deep concern at the persistence of acts of anti-union violence and the lack of sufficient progress in taking specific and rapid measures in this regard, the Committee once again urges the Government and all the competent authorities to: (i) take specific and rapid measures, including budgetary measures, to comply fully with all elements in the tripartite agreement concerning action against anti-union violence, giving the Committee on Anti-Union Violence the necessary and vital impetus for it to succeed in the performance of its functions, ensuring the active involvement of all relevant authorities; (ii) institutionalize and make effective the participation of the representative trade unions in the National Council for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders; (iii) draw up a special investigation protocol to enable the Office of the Public Prosecutor to examine, systematically and effectively, any anti-union motives behind the acts of violence affecting members of the trade union movement; (iv) ensure that the criminal courts give priority treatment to cases of anti-union violence; and (v) ensure adequate and prompt protection for all at-risk members of the trade union movement. The Committee also requests the Government to continue providing detailed information on criminal investigations and proceedings relating to acts of violence against members of the trade union movement, including in relation to the murder of Jorge Alberto Acosta Barrientos and of Oscar Obdulio Turcios Fúnes.

Legislative issues

Articles 2 et seq. of the Convention. Establishment, autonomy and activities of trade unions. The Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government for many years to amend the following provisions of the Labour Code to bring them into conformity with the Convention:

-the exclusion from the rights and guarantees of the Convention of workers in agricultural and stock-raising enterprises which do not permanently employ more than ten workers (section 2(1));
-the prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise (section 472);
-the requirement of at least 30 workers to establish a trade union (section 475);
-the requirement that the officers of a trade union must be of Honduran nationality (sections 510(a) and 541(a)), be engaged in the corresponding activity (sections 510(c) and 541(c)) and be able to read and write (sections 510(d) and 541(d));
-the prohibition on strikes called by federations and confederations (section 537);
-the requirement of a two-thirds majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union organization in order to call a strike (sections 495 and 563);
-the authority of the competent minister to end disputes in oil industry services (section 555(2));
-government authorization or a six-month period of notice for any suspension of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558); and
-the referral to compulsory arbitration, without the possibility of calling a strike for as long as the arbitration award is in force (two years), of collective disputes in public services that are not essential in the strict sense of the term (sections 554(2) and (7), 820 and 826).

In its previous comments, the Committee observed that the establishment of tripartite social dialogue on the reform of the labour legislation, as envisaged in the tripartite agreement of May 2019, would call for a special effort in terms of building trust between the parties, and noted with regret the absence of tangible progress in this respect. Aware of the obstacles that the COVID-19 pandemic might have raised, the Committee trusted that the Government, with the technical support of the Office, would move forward as soon as possible with holding tripartite discussions and make progress in the preparation of the reforms that have been requested for many years.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) on 4 February 2020, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security sent a note to the President of the MEPCOIT requesting that the discussions relating to the reform of the Labour Code be resumed as soon as possible; (ii) the coordinator of the MEPCOIT replied on 25 February 2020, stating that a meeting would be convened for that purpose in the coming days; and (iii) although the state of emergency made it impossible to continue with the activities, the Government was mindful of the commitments made and would be taking up the pending issues as soon as possible.

The Committee also notes the observations of the social partners concerning the labour legislation revision process. The Committee observes the insistence of the ITUC on the need for the Government to take immediate steps to amend the provisions of the Labour Code to bring them into line with the Convention. The COHEP, for its part, recalls that the position of the employer sector has already been expressed repeatedly and indicates that on 20 May 2021, the MEPCOIT held a session to discuss and adopt the work plan and, inter alia, to discuss the harmonization of the Labour Code with the Convention. The Committee also notes from the report of the COHEP that on 24 June 2021 the private sector assumed the presidency of the CES for a term of one year, and welcomes its commitment to creating the necessary spaces for dialogue to reach agreements that reflect the Committee’s recommendations.

The Committee regrets that there has been no progress in the tripartite discussion process envisaged in the agreement of 2019. The Committee reiterates that, while it is aware of the obstacles that the COVID-19 pandemic may have created in this regard, the Committee firmly hopes that the Government will move forward as rapidly as possible with the tripartite discussions, with the technical support of the Office, and report progress in the preparation of the reforms that have been requested for many years. The Committee encourages the development of agreements in the framework of the CES that reflect the recommendations of the Committee. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

New Penal Code. The Committee recalls that on 25 June 2020, a new Penal Code entered into force and that, in view of the broad scope of certain offences, it requested the Government, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, to assess the impact of the provisions of the Penal Code on the free exercise of trade union activities. The Committee notes that the Government attached a copy of a note sent by the Secretary of State for Labour and Social Security to workers’ federations and the COHEP on 4 May 2021 in order for them to designate a representative to take part in the assessment of the provisions of the Penal Code. It also takes note of the COHEP’s indication that it received the aforementioned note and that on 14 May 2021, it indicated that it would send a letter to the employer organizations in order to ascertain positions in this regard and thus consolidate the position of the private sector. For its part, the ITUC emphasizes that the provisions of the new Penal Code considerably limit the right to peaceful assembly and criminalize protests and public assemblies with penalties of up to 30 years’ imprisonment. The Committee welcomes the fact that the Government has initiated the consultation process on the impact of the provisions of the Penal Code on the free exercise of trade union activities and hopes that these consultations will take place as soon as possible. It requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

Application of the Convention in practice. In its previous comment, the Committee expressed the hope that once the obstacles created by the COVID-19 pandemic were overcome, the MEPCOIT would shortly start its industrial relations dispute settlement activities so that it could examine alleged violations of freedom of association in practice, including allegations relating to the agro-export and education sectors. The Committee takes note that, although the health emergency did not allow the MEPCOIT to meet its commitments, it would be resuming them at the earliest opportunity. The Committee further notes that, according to the COHEP, on 20 May 2021 the MEPCOIT held a session to discuss and approve its work plan, and for its reactivation and strengthening of its technical and political powers to intervene in the settlement of disputes. While it is aware of the obstacles that the COVID-19 pandemic may have created in relation to the operation of the MEPCOIT, the Committee emphasizes the essential role that the MEPCOIT can and must play in the resolution of industrial disputes and firmly hopes that it will resume its activities at the earliest possible opportunity. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

The Committee requests the Government to take, as soon as possible, the necessary measures to bring its legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention. The Committee recalls that the technical assistance of the Office is at its disposal and expresses the firm hope that the Government will provide information in its next report on any progress made with regard to the issues raised.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2023.]

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 31 August 2018, and the Government’s reply in this respect. It also notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) and of the ITUC, received on 31 August and 1 September 2021, respectively, on issues being examined by the Committee in this observation. The Committee requests the Government to provide its reply in this respect.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comment, the Committee noted with interest the amount of the fines prescribed for anti-union acts in the Labour Inspection Act of 2017 and requested the Government to provide information on their application and impact. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) since the entry into force of the Act, businesses have taken greater care not to commit violations of this type; (ii) the Act has made it possible to provide effective protection against anti-union discrimination since it provides for the immediate reinstatement of members of executive committees who have been dismissed; and (iii) the increase in fines has contributed to a decrease in this type of violation. The Committee notes that, as the COHEP indicates, in addition to the provisions of the Labour Inspection Act, section 295 of Legislative Decree No. 130-2017 published in the Official Gazette of 10 May 2019, containing the new Penal Code, establishes discrimination in employment as an offence punishable by penalties of from 1 to 2 years’ imprisonment and a daily fine of from 100 to 200 days (each day having a value of not less than 20 lempiras (the equivalent of US$0.83) and not more than 5,000 lempiras (the equivalent of US$209)). The Committee notes with interest that this provision explicitly refers to discrimination in employment, public or private, against any person for being a workers’ legal or trade union representative. The Committee observes, however, that according to the Government, in 2019 and 2020, 222 complaints concerning anti-union acts were filed and are still being processed and that the ITUC also reports anti-union dismissals. The Committee expresses the hope that the implementation of the Labour Inspection Act combined with the Penal Code will ensure more effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and prevent their recurrence. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on the outcomes of the aforementioned complaints and invites it to compile data on the average duration of legal proceedings (including appeals procedures) relating to discrimination on the grounds of trade union activities.

In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of Ministerial Agreement No. STSS-196-2015 which protects workers wishing to form trade unions and to examine, with the social partners, the possibility of incorporating the content thereof in the Labour Code. In this respect, the Government indicates that upon receipt of a request for registration of a collective agreement, the General Labour Directorate (DGT) is immediately informed so that it can verify that the right of workers to form a trade union is not being curtailed. It also indicates that on 27 January 2021, it sent a note to the President of the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes referred to the ILO (MEPCOIT) of the Economic and Social Council (CES) to assess with the social partners the possibility of incorporating the content of the Agreement in the Labour Code. The Committee notes the COHEP’s indication that it agrees with the proposal to incorporate the content of the agreement in the Labour Code through the CES and its further indication that this matter could be included in the discussion on the reform of the Labour Code, taking into consideration that protection for workers wishing to form a trade union should also be offered to those who decide not to join one. The Committee notes that, as indicated in the observation on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), although the health emergency did not allow the MEPCOIT to meet its commitments, it would be resuming them at the earliest opportunity. The Committee encourages the Government and the social partners to consider this matter in the context of the reform of the Labour Code and hopes that MEPCOIT resumes its activities as soon as possible. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. The Committee has been asking the Government, after consultation with the social partners and in the context of the process of reforming the Labour Code, to take the necessary measures to incorporate in the legislation explicit provisions that ensure effective protection against acts of interference by the employer, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, when carrying out an inspection, the DGT can identify whether there is any type of interference by the employer and that, if such is the case, corrective measures are applied through the labour inspectors. While it notes the Government’s indications, the Committee recalls that in order to ensure that effect is given to Article 2 of the Convention in practice, the legislation must make express provision for sufficiently dissuasive remedies and sanctions against acts of interference by employers against workers and their organizations, including against measures that are intended to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the objective of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take due note of this matter in the process of reforming the Labour Code, and to provide information on the progress achieved in this respect.

Articles 4 and 6. Promotion of collective bargaining. Right of collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comment, the Committee, having taken note of the Government’s indication that various decentralized and centralized institutions were permitted to submit claims and engage in collective bargaining, requested the Government to specify the texts that recognized the right of workers to collective bargaining in these institutions, and how they were related to sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code, which provide that unions of public employees may not submit lists of claims or conclude collective agreements. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Constitution of the Republic embraces the principles and practices of international law and establishes equal rights, including the right to collective bargaining. With regard to sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code, the Government indicates that while it is true that there are limitations on collective bargaining in the public sector, trade unions can submit “respectful statements” containing requests and allowing negotiations aimed at improving administrative organization or working methods. It indicates that there are “respectful statements” in four public institutions. The Committee further notes that the COHEP forwarded information provided by the DGT indicating that in the public sector, 34 collective agreements, two collective accords, nine special accords, 26 memorandums of understanding and four “respectful statements” are in place. The Committee also notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) examined allegations of failure by a public institution to comply with a collective agreement and requested the Government to promote dialogue between the parties so that the collective agreement is fully implemented (see 386th Report, June 2018, Case No. 3268). The Committee observes that while it appears from the foregoing information that collective bargaining is in practice possible in certain public institutions, the fact remains that sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code do not allow unions of public employees to submit lists of claims or conclude collective agreements. The Committee further recalls that a system in which public employees may only submit to the authorities “respectful statements”, a mechanism that does not allow for real negotiations to take place with regard to conditions of employment, is not in accordance with the Convention. It further recalls that although Article 6 of the Convention excludes public servants engaged in the administration of the State (such as public servants in ministries and other comparable government bodies and their auxiliaries) from its scope of application, other categories of public servants and public employees (for example, employees of public enterprises, municipal services and decentralized entities, public sector teachers and transport sector personnel) should enjoy the guarantees provided for by the Convention and, therefore, be able to undertake collective bargaining with respect to their terms and conditions of employment, in particular their pay. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code so that the right to collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State is duly recognized in national law. It encourages the Government to address this issue in the context of the process of reforming the Labour Code and requests it to provide information in this respect.

Article 4. Collective bargaining on trade union leave. The Committee notes that, in the context of the aforementioned Case No. 3268, the CFA observed that according to section 95(5) of the Labour Code, the employer is not obliged to grant more than two days of paid trade union leave in each calendar month, and in no case more than 15 days in the same year. The CFA referred this legislative aspect of the case to the Committee. In the same way as the CFA, the Committee recalls that the payment of wages to full-time union officials should be up to the parties to determine, and the Government should authorize negotiation on the issue of whether trade union activity by full-time union officials should be treated as unpaid leave. The Committee requests the Government, in consultation with the representative workers’ and employers’ organizations and in the context of the Labour Code reform process, to take the necessary steps to review the legislation so that restrictions on the possibility of collective bargaining on remuneration for trade union leave be removed.

Application of the Convention in practice. Export processing zones. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in relation to ten inspections carried out in export processing zones following complaints of violations of trade union rights. It notes that half of the complaints were shelved because no evidence of violations of trade union freedom was found, four were referred for resolution and notification and in one case a fine was imposed. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide full information in this respect, including the number of collective agreements concluded in export processing zones and the number of workers covered by them.

Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government and by the COHEP on a number of collective agreements concluded and in force in the country, indicating the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered. The Committee encourages the Government to continue to provide detailed information in this respect and once again requests the Government to report on the measures taken, in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention, to promote collective bargaining. On the other hand, recalling that a direct contacts mission which took place in Honduras in 2019 at the request of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in relation to Convention No. 87 received numerous allegations of violations of freedom of association in practice from trade union federations, especially in the agri-export and education sectors, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on collective bargaining in those sectors.

The Committee reminds the Government of the possibility to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

The Committee notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) received on 1 October 2020 and 31 August 2021. The Committee notes the Government’s replies in which it indicates that, in general, it agrees with the statements made by COHEP.

Legislative reforms. The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government indicates that no progress has been noted in relation to the review of the Labour Code and the Equal Opportunities for Women Act (LIOM). The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on any developments in this regard.

Articles 1 and 3(b) of the Convention. Definition of discrimination in the legislation. The Committee previously requested the Government to consider, in the context of the possible reform of the Labour Code, the inclusion of a definition of the term “discrimination” and the enumeration of at least all the grounds listed in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention. The Government refers to the formulation of the Bill to issue the Code of Labour Procedure, which would establish protection for workers in the event of the violation of fundamental rights such as non-discrimination at work. In this regard, the Committee notes COHEP’s indication that, as the Economic and Social Council (CES) was not convened in 2020-2021, the status of the Bill to issue the Code of Labour Procedure before the National Congress is not known. Under these conditions, the Committee trusts that the Labour Code reform will include a legislative definition of the term “discrimination” and the completion of the list of grounds set out in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on any developments regarding the examination of the Bill to issue the Code of Labour Procedure. The Committee reminds the Government of the possibility of availing itself of the technical assistance of the Office with regard to both legislative initiatives.

Sexual harassment. In relation to its previous request regarding the need for a definition of sexual harassment in the legislation, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Bill to issue the Code of Labour Procedure provides for protection of the physical, psychological and moral integrity of workers, including with regard to cases of sexual and moral harassment at work. According to the Government, three factors are required by the Bill for the determination of sexual harassment: (1) any kind of approach or pressure of a sexual nature, whether physical or verbal; (2) such an approach or pressure is unwanted by the person experiencing it; and (3) such an approach or pressure arises from the employment relationship, and results in a hostile working environment, impedes the performance of work or restricts the victim’s occupational opportunities. The Committee trusts that the Bill to issue the Code of Labour Procedure will include provisions that prohibit both types of sexual harassment (quid pro quo and a hostile working environment).

Regarding the statistical data on complaints of sexual harassment, the Committee notes the information from the Office of the Prosecutor-General provided by the Government, which indicates that, in 2020, 100 complaints were filed (bullying and harassment combined), five of which were closed and three of which were investigated. The Committee notes COHEP’s indication that 439 complaints of sexual harassment were received by the National Emergency System between 1 January and 31 July 2020, and 273 specifically during the lockdown period (15 March – 31 July 2020). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of persons prosecuted and the sanctions imposed and remedies granted in cases in which acts of sexual harassment were found to have taken place. The Committee also requests the Government to make every effort to prevent and combat sexual harassment, and to provide information in this regard.

Articles 2 and 3. National equality policy. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the monitoring and assessment of the results achieved with regard to equality and non-discrimination in employment and occupation in the context of the implementation of the National Employment Policy of Honduras (PNEH) and the Joint Framework for Action (MAC). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding the difficulties faced by the country in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, following which it will be necessary to review and adjust economic and employment policy measures to the new approach adopted by the country to economic growth, investment decisions and the stimulation of public and private consumption. The Committee further notes COHEP’s indication that, despite the creation of the Tripartite Decent Work Sectoral Round Table (MSED), which is responsible for developing and monitoring the PNEH and the MAC, the Government has not reconvened a meeting since the Sectoral Round Table was established, or undertaken any action aimed at implementing and coordinating the two instruments. Lastly, according to COHEP, to date, no updated statistical data or information is available on the monitoring and evaluation of the impact of the PNEH and the MAC with regard to equality and non-discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to: (i) indicate the measures taken or envisaged to address the difficulties encountered in the effective implementation of its national policy to promote and achieve equality of opportunity and treatment for women and men in employment and occupation; and (ii) provide, to the extent possible, any available information, including statistical data disaggregated by gender, on the monitoring and evaluation of the National Employment Policy of Honduras and the Joint Framework for Action, with a particular emphasis on equality and non-discrimination.

Articles 2 and 3(b) and (e). National gender equality policy. Elimination of gender stereotypes, and assistance programmes. The Committee notes that, in reply to its request for information on the City Women’s Centres (CCM) programmes, the Government indicates that the following modules have been developed: (1) awareness and protection of women’s rights; (2) women’s economic autonomy; (3) sexual and reproductive health; (4) comprehensive care for young women; (5) community education; and (6) childcare support during the provision of care for women at the centre. The Committee notes that COHEP’s observations are in line with those of the Government. The Government observes that the activities carried out by all City Women’s Centres for the elimination of gender stereotypes and sexual harassment in the workplace consist of receiving the complaints filed at the centre, in order to initiate the corresponding investigations through an extraordinary inspection, and the referral of the complaints to the General Directorate of Labour Inspection. In the case of an anonymous complaint, an ordinary inspection is ordered, which is carried out ex officio in order to monitor compliance with all labour provisions. The Committee takes due note of this information and requests the Government to provide information on the impact of the City Women’s Centres in relation to the elimination of gender stereotypes.

Articles 2 and 3(b) and (f). National gender equality policy in the maquila. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government on the various training activities conducted by the Honduran Association of Maquiladoras (AHM), with support from the ILO on several occasions, to promote gender equality and combat discrimination in employment and occupation in this sector. However, the Committee notes that, in reply to its request for information on the action taken by labour inspectors in the maquila sector, and on the number of complaints received on discrimination in the sector and their follow-up, the Government reports that the current system for the administration of cases does not include “discrimination” among the causes of complaints and does not specifically address cases relating to the maquila sector. The Committee recalls that, in 2019, the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice of the United Nations Human Rights Council reported that women workers in the maquila sector often suffer from “harassment, exploitation, psychological pressure based on high productivity objectives, longer working hours, few resting times, little time to eat and no access to drinking water”, safety and health and recommended the Government to ensure that labour inspectors conduct thorough and independent investigations in maquilas into working, safety and health conditions, and that effective referral mechanisms are available to all workers (A/HRC/41/33/Add.1, 8 May 2019, paragraphs 41 and 76(e)). The Committee trusts that the appropriate measures will be taken for the harmonization of the action of the labour inspectorate in order to collect information on the types of violations in maquilas, disaggregated by sex, and the sanctions imposed.

Articles 2 and 3(f). Gender equality policy in agriculture and rural areas. With respect to the measures taken or envisaged to promote gender equality in employment and occupation in the agricultural sector and in rural areas, the Government indicates that the National Agrarian Institute (INA): (1) encourages the organized rural population to increase the participation of women as beneficiaries of the land titling process; and (2) focuses its work on providing support for organized producers in enterprises in the rural sector, indigenous and Afro-Honduran communities, and promotes a greater share for women of the resulting benefits. These activities are interrelated, both in terms of access to land, and to the production scheme, and therefore women participate extensively in the establishment of family vegetable gardens. However, the Government recognizes that the INA does not have sufficient resources to launch campaigns aimed at changing the attitudes of the population, which are entrenched in gender stereotypes. The Government indicates that, in accordance with the legislation, the degree of participation is determined by the beneficiaries and, although both men and women have the same rights, the cultural context of the population living in the countryside (where men make the final decision) has slowed down the adoption of the scheme. The Committee notes that, during the period from 2019 to February 2021, 271 land titles were granted to women heads of indigenous households (669 were issued to men), and 1,561 land titles were granted to women heads of households in rural areas (2,451 were issued to men). The Committee observes that, according to the new statistical data provided, the number of land titles granted to women (6,961) remains significantly lower than the number granted to men (14,418). The Committee encourages the Government to continue making every possible effort to promote gender equality in employment and occupation in the agricultural sector and in rural areas.

Articles 2 and 3(b) and (e). National equality policy to combat discrimination on the grounds of race, colour and national extraction. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, despite the efforts made by the Directorate of Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples (DINAFROH), no significant progress or commitment has been demonstrated by the various State institutions to meet the aspirations outlined in the Political Agenda for Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Women (adopted in 2013). The Government also underscores that it is necessary to analyse the implementation of the public policy to combat racism and racial discrimination for the comprehensive development of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples (P-PIAH) 2016-2026, as the operational mechanisms for the achievement of the strategic objectives have not yet been developed. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to carry out a comprehensive analysis, in consultation with the workers’ and employers’ organizations concerned, to: (i) identify the obstacles and challenges to the effective application of the public policy to combat racism and racial discrimination for the comprehensive development of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples; and (ii) develop an appropriate and concerted strategy to effectively overcome these obstacles and challenges.

Articles 2 and 3(a) and (b). National equality policy for persons living with HIV and AIDS. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken to collaborate with employers’ and workers’ organizations on the preparation and development of its equality policy for persons living with HIV and AIDS. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to: (i) the activities of the National AIDS Commission (CONASIDA) in relation to the development of the draft Honduran Equity and Equality Act and the draft Gender Identity for Transgender Persons Act, to promote respect for and non-discrimination against women and men key workers in response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic; (ii) the provision of training for the representatives of the Secretariat of Labour in various municipalities on the policy on HIV in the world of work; (iii) the processing and follow-up of complaints and claims related to the labour rights of persons with HIV/AIDS; and (iv) the promotion of stigma- and discrimination-free spaces in private enterprises and municipalities. The Committee also notes the information provided by COHEP, according to which the national response to HIV is to be reoriented through the National Strategic Plan for the Response to HIV in Honduras 2020-2024 in light of the analysis of the AIDS epidemic and the response thereto, and the United Nations General Assembly Political Declaration on ending the HIV and AIDS epidemic as a public health problem by 2030. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made with the adoption of the draft Honduran Equity and Equality Act and the draft Gender Identity for Transgender Persons Act.

National equality policy for persons with disabilities. In reply to the Committee’s request for statistical data on the access to work of workers with disabilities, the Government indicates that, on average, 96 per cent of enterprises do not meet the quotas established by the Act on equity and comprehensive development for persons with disabilities (Decree No.160-2005). The Government adds that, due to the lockdown resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and the emergency measures adopted, it was complicated to create employment opportunities in general, and in particular for persons with disabilities. The Committee further notes the indication by COHEP that, in May 2021, the National Congress held its first reading of the new Act on inclusive sustainable development for persons with disabilities. This Act was considered necessary to bridge the gaps in the Act on equity and comprehensive development for persons with disabilities, and to ensure that public, social, economic and cultural policies provide for the full participation, development, integration and effective inclusion of persons with disabilities, and guarantee equality of opportunity with the rest of the population, with a view to effectively achieving and implementing human development. COHEP indicates that, according to the Single Register of Participants of the National Social Sector Information Centre, motor disabilities are the main form of disability (representing 31 per cent of the disabled population in Honduras), followed by visual disabilities (26 per cent), mental disabilities (19 per cent), hearing disabilities (11 per cent) and speech disabilities (11 per cent). COHEP also indicates that 75.31 per cent of persons with disabilities struggle to find work or devote themselves exclusively to household tasks. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the adoption of: (i) the new Act on inclusive sustainable development for persons with disabilities; and (ii) specific measures with a view to ensuring that persons with disabilities enjoy equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation, and to eliminating any discrimination in this regard.

Enforcement. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the adoption of new inspection protocols, the number of inspections conducted relating to discrimination, the number of cases identified, and the action taken on those cases (sanctions imposed and applied). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in 2018 and 2019, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (STSS) published four protocols on different subjects (inspection processes, freedom of association and collective bargaining, occupational safety and health, and child labour). In its observations, COHEP refers to the same protocols. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any of the above protocols address subjects related to equality and non-discrimination, or whether a specific protocol on these matters is envisaged in the near future.

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2021. It also notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received on 31 August 2021, and the Government’s reply.

Article 1 of the Convention. Peoples covered by the Convention. In reply to its previous comments, the Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government on the population stating that it belongs to one of the nine indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples (Garifuna, Lenca, Maya, Chorti, Misquito, Nahoa, English-speaking Afro-Honduran, Pech, Tawahka and Tolupan), disaggregated by sex, department, occupation and educational level. The Committee observes that this information is compiled by the National Social Sector Information Centre which, according to the information available on its official website, also compiles data on the type of housing, educational level, occupation, access to water and reading and writing skills of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples. The Committee welcomes the efforts made to collect this data, and encourages the Government to continue compiling and updating information on the social, economic and educational situation of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, which helps to guide public policies aimed at indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, and evaluate their impact.

Articles 2 and 33. Coordinated and systematic action. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Department of Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples (DINAFROH) had developed an action plan for the application of the public policy against racism and racial discrimination for the comprehensive development of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples (P-PIAH), which includes six sets of rights: social and political participation; the right to education; the right to health; the right to ancestral heritage resources; the right to land, territory and natural resources; and customary law.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding the measures taken to ensure that members of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples are able to register as participants eligible for the benefits of social programmes, in particular the Bono Vida Mejor programme. This programme involves the periodic provision of cash transfers conditional on the fulfilment of education co-responsibilities for pre-school and primary school children. The Committee welcomes the measures aimed at facilitating understanding, acceptance and participation of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples in the programme through: the adoption of a protocol for access and assistance for indigenous and Afro-Honduran communities to the Bono Vida Mejor programme; the implementation of outreach processes and community assemblies; the provision of support for local authorities and leaders; and the development of promotional materials on the cultural and linguistic diversity of the peoples.

The Committee observes that, in its observations, the ITUC indicates that in general, indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples continue to suffer poor health, education and housing conditions, and the socio-economic gap persists between them and other members of the national community.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the evaluation of the six pillars of the P-PIAH, and to indicate whether the objectives established in the action plan for its implementation have been achieved, the results achieved and obstacles identified. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the representatives of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples have participated in the P-PIAH monitoring and evaluation process. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the manner in which DINAFROH, the body responsible for providing support and implementing the P-PIAH, performs its role, and to specify the coordination mechanisms established with the other competent institutions regarding the rights of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples. Recalling the Government’s indication that developing an institutional definition of the DINAFROH was challenging, the Committee requests the Government to report on the competences and responsibilities determined for the DINAFROH, and the resources allocated to it.

Articles 8 and 12. Access to justice. In reply to the request for information on measures taken to reinforce access to justice for indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples and to train actors in the judicial system on the individual and collective rights of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, the Government indicates that the Prevention and Context Analysis Unit attached to the Secretariat for Human Rights has held 43 training sessions on the Act for the protection of human rights defenders, journalists, social communicators and actors in the justice system, attended by 814 individuals, including human rights defenders and defenders of indigenous communities and the Garifuna people. It also indicates that the DINAFROH holds various meetings and organizes training sessions with and for members of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, and promotes and facilitates participatory processes, the provision of advice and technical support in human rights and development to enable indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples to develop tools that facilitate the follow-up of complaints submitted to the competent authorities and the resulting cases.

The Committee also notes the information available on the website of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, according to which a new office of the Special Prosecutor for Ethnic Groups and Cultural Heritage was inaugurated in the city of Tela in the Caribbean part of the country, which will contribute to improving access to the justice system for members of the Garifuna, Misquito, Tolupán, Pech, Tawahka and isleño (black ethnic island dwellers) ethnic groups. It also notes the adoption of a Protocol on prosecution regarding indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, which aims to establish uniform guidelines for the investigation and processing of complaints relating to violations of the rights of indigenous peoples. The Committee observes that, in its 2020 Annual Report, the National Commission for Human Rights (CONADEH), indicates the need to strengthen and provide the necessary resources to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Ethnic Groups and Cultural and the DINAFROH to respond to the needs of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples with regard to access to justice, the protection of lands and natural resources, and other rights.

Referring also to the comments in its observation on the acts of violence and threats against members and leaders of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, and the requests relating to their lands (see below), the Committee requests the Government to continue taking measures to ensure that members of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples and their representative bodies have access to legal proceedings and other mechanisms to enable them to assert their rights and obtain compensation in the event of violations. The Committee also requests the Government to continue providing information on the action taken to raise awareness among and train members of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples and their representatives about their rights.

Article 14. Land. In its previous comments, the Committee welcomed the efforts made regarding the land titles granted to twelve Mosquitia territorial councils by the National Agrarian Institute (INA). It observed, however, that although between 1993 and 2019, 517 titles had been granted to indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, in recent years, the number of titles granted had decreased (one title a year in 2017, 2018 and 2019). The Committee also observed that, in its concluding observations of 2019, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in its 2019 report on the human rights situation in Honduras, emphasized that the issue of demarcation, titles and clarification of the land rights of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples and their occupation by third parties was resulting in complaints and social conflict. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the progress made in the process of clarifying and granting land title for indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples and on the claims submitted in this regard.

The Committee observes, according to the information provided by the Government, that: in 2019, title to an area of 124 hectares was granted to the La Cuchilla Lenca community; in 2020, no titles were granted; and in 2021, title to an area of 29 hectares was granted to the Nuevo Amanecer 28 Mayo Lenca community. It also notes the action taken to clarify and grant land title to the Garifuna community in El Triunfo de la Cruz and Punta Piedra, occupied by third parties, and regarding which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had handed down decisions in 2015. It observes the Government’s indication that there are various obstacles in this regard, and that in the case of the lands of the Punta Piedra community, the residents did not allow the entry of technical appraisers.

The Committee also observes that, in another case relating to land title, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), in its substantive review, concluded that no land title for the entire territory of the Garifuna community of San Juan had been granted by the Government, including failures to ensure peaceful ownership and possession and non-interference by third parties (Case No. 12.949).

The Committee requests the Government to step up its efforts to ensure the effective protection of the rights of ownership and possession of the indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples to the lands that they traditionally occupy. The Committee urges the Government to continue its efforts to make progress in the process of clarifying and granting land title, and to provide information in this regard. The Committee reiterates its request for detailed information on the pending land claims filed by indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, and on the measures taken to resolve the conflicts that have arisen due to the encroachment of third parties onto their lands.

Articles 7 and 15. Participation in environmental impact studies. The Government previously indicated that to begin any programme for the exploration or exploitation of resources in zones considered to be “areas of environmental fragility” or “protected areas”, an environmental impact study must be undertaken. The Government indicated that the territory of indigenous areas is deemed to fall under these categories (Regulation of the National Environmental Impact Assessment System (SINEIA)). The environmental study must be deposited in locations established by the General Directorate for Environmental Assessment and Control (DECA) for public consultation and subsequent review and approval by the DECA. The Government added that, taking into account the environmental conditions and significance of the project, works or activity, the Secretariat of State in the Ministry of the Environment shall have the power to call a hearing or public forum for the open discussion of the project, without distinction between indigenous peoples and the non-indigenous population.

The Committee recalls that, in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention, Governments shall ensure that, whenever appropriate, studies are carried out, in cooperation with the peoples concerned, to assess the social, spiritual, cultural and environmental impact on them of planned development activities. The Committee reiterates its previous request to the Government to provide information, with specific examples, on how the cooperation of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples is secured in practice for the assessment of the social, spiritual, cultural and environmental impact of development activities planned in their lands.

Consultation and natural resources. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the right to participation and consultation is one of the main challenges in relation to indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples. It is therefore necessary to establish mechanisms to guarantee the participation and effective consultation of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples regarding activities related to the use of natural resources in the areas where these peoples are settled. It indicates that so far, municipal offices have organized open forums in which they put forward projects for the exploitation of existing resources in the lands of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, and that these peoples do not recognize the open forums as a consultation process within the meaning of the Convention. The Misquito people developed the Biocultural Protocol for the Consultation of the Misquito People, which was recognized by the Secretariat of Natural Resources and the Environment as the only consultation protocol in Misquito territories. The Government indicates that, for any project to be developed concerning the Misquito people, and in accordance with the SINEIA Regulation, this instrument shall be used for consultation. It indicates that the Lenca people is also finalizing a protocol for the consultation of the Lenca people. The Committee refers to the comments made in its observation on the importance of adopting a regulatory framework for consultation with all the peoples covered by the Convention, and requests the Government to communicate information on the procedures established to consult indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, with a view to ascertaining whether and to what extent their interests would be prejudiced, before undertaking or authorizing any programmes for the exploration or exploitation of existing resources pertaining to their lands, in accordance with Article 15 of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to supply information on the consultations held within the framework of the Biocultural Protocol for the Consultation of the Misquito People.

Mining activities. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take into account the provisions of Article 15 of the Convention in the revision process of the General Mining Act. The Committee noted that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had found several sections of the General Mining Act to be unconstitutional, including section 67, under which, prior to adopting a decision to grant an exploitation concession, the mining authority must request the municipal corporation and the population to hold a citizens consultation within no more than six days. It also noted the Government’s indication that, in this context, Honduran Institute of Geology and Mines had refrained from granting mining concession rights for exploitation.

The Government indicates that, pursuant to Decree No. 109-2019 of 25 November 2019, section 67-A was included in the Mining Act, under which, prior to the application for the exploitation stage, when the exploration results are submitted and prior to the decision to grant an exploitation concession, the mining authority shall request the municipal corporation to hold a public consultation (open forum) in the area affected by the specific project. The decision taken in the consultations is binding for the granting of the exploitation concession. The Committee notes with interest that, in the case of projects to be developed in the lands of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, the section provides that prior, free and informed consultations shall be carried out in accordance with Convention No. 169 and/or the special national legislation adopted for this purpose. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the processes of consultations held with indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples under section 67-A of the General Mining Act prior to the granting of a concession for exploitation, in order to determine whether and to what extent the interests of these peoples would be prejudiced.

The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that, in the application process for mining permits at the exploration stage, public consultations are not held, as there is a stage for the verification of the area and a period during which opposition can be expressed to the application. During the verification stage, the land registry agent must verify whether the area is located within an exclusion zone. The Government explains that exclusion zones include all sectors or areas occupied by indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, in accordance with section 48 of the General Mining Act. In this regard, the Committee observes that section 48 lists the mining rights exclusion zones for which the mining authority cannot grant mining rights without including an explicit reference to the land traditionally occupied by indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples. The Committee requests the Government to provide clarifications in this respect.

Article 28. Education. The Committee welcomes the detailed information provided by the Government in reply to its comments on the actions undertaken by the General Directorate of Education for Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples (SDGEPIAH) to develop bilingual intercultural education in indigenous and Afro-Honduran communities, and to retain children in schools. It notes in particular the production, in each of the languages of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, of curricular tools adapted to the world vision of these peoples, in the areas of language, science and mathematics; the training of indigenous teachers; the development in 2019, 2020 and 2021 of three diploma courses for trainers of trainers in multicultural techniques and methodologies in intercultural and bilingual education; the construction of several schools in various departments of the country; the provision of books and educational materials with cultural content; and the implementation of end-of-year tests in the mother tongues of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples.

The Committee observes that, according to information available on the CENISS website, 69.46 per cent of the indigenous and Afro-Honduran population said that they had only completed primary school, 13.39 per cent had no educational level, 12 per cent had completed secondary education, 3.15 per cent had only attended pre-school, and 2.07 per cent had reached higher, non-university higher or postgraduate education.

The Committee encourages the Government to continue taking measures to guarantee that members of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples have access to education at all levels, and to continue implementing bilingual intercultural education, in cooperation with these peoples. It also requests the Government to continue providing updated information on the education situation of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2023.]

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2021. It also notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received on 31 August 2021, and the Government’s reply.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (110th Session of the International Labour Conference, May–June 2021)

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2021, and in particular that in its conclusions it requested the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance and urged it to accept an ILO direct contacts mission. In this regard, the Committee notes that, in a communication dated 24 August 2021, the Government confirmed that it accepted a visit to the country by the direct contacts mission, and proposed that it take place in the first months of 2022. The Committee welcomes the willingness demonstrated by the Government in this regard, and hopes that this mission will contribute to finding solutions to the issues raised in relation to the application of the Convention.

Article 3 of the Convention. Human rights. On several occasions, both the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee, in its conclusions in 2016 and 2021, have expressed deep concern regarding the allegations of murders, threats, forced disappearances and violence of which representatives and members of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples have been victims, and requested the Government to conduct, without delay, independent investigations and prosecutions in relation to these allegations, and to indicate the protection measures taken as a consequence of the crimes and threats against members of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples.

In its report, the Government indicates that: (1) between 2018 and 2020, the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Ethnic Groups and Cultural Heritage received 255 allegations of acts of violence and threats against members of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, including 64 regarding threats, 4 concerning attempted homicide, 3 concerning homicide and 13 regarding murders; (2) at the request of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Ethnic Groups and Cultural Heritage, 15 protection measures were implemented for members and leaders of indigenous communities, and leaders of representative organizations of indigenous peoples; (3) under the National Protection System, between 2018 and February 2021, the Prevention and Context Analysis Unit developed 14 prevention plans and guarantees of non-recurrence, together with the beneficiary communities, and carried out training activities on the Protection Act for defenders of human rights, journalists, social communicators and actors in the justice system; (4) in April 2021, criminal proceedings were initiated against the suspected instigator of the murder of Berta Cáceres (former President of the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH), committed in 2014, while the Public Prosecutor’s Office continues its investigation to identify other possible instigators involved in the murder.

The Committee observes the ITUC’s allegations that environmental and human rights defenders continue to face a critical situation, with reference to the murders of indigenous leaders committed in 2018, 2019 and 2020. The ITUC refers specifically to the kidnapping and disappearance of four members of the Garifuna community in El Triunfo de la Cruz, on 18 July 2020, and the murders in December 2020 of José Adán Medina, a member of the Tolupan indigenous community, and Félix Vásquez, an environmental activist from the Lenca community for whom the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Ethnic Groups and Cultural Heritage had requested protection measures. The ITUC alleges the lack of protection measures and prevention of acts of violence against environmental and human rights defenders, and the minimal, slow and inconsistent processes for the investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators and instigators of these acts.

The Committee also observes that, on 2 September 2020, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a resolution calling for the adoption of urgent measures in the case of the disappearance of four members of the Garifuna community (the case referred to by the ITUC), and requested the Government to adopt the necessary and appropriate measures to determine the whereabouts of these persons, and to provide effective protection for the rights to life and personal integrity of community leaders from the Garifuna communities of Triunfo de la Cruz and Punta Piedra who are collectively taking action for the defence of the rights of the Garifuna people.

With regard to the proceedings against the alleged perpetrator of the murder of Berta Cáceres, the Committee duly notes that, according to the information available on the official website of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Trial Court with national jurisdiction issued a guilty verdict against the chief executive officer of the enterprise Desarrollos Energéticos S.A. (DESA), and found that he had ordered the death of Berta Cáceres as part of a plan to remove any obstacle that interfered with the operations of DESA on the Gualcarque river, which is an ancestral territory of the Lenca indigenous people.

The Committee observes with deep concern that, according to the information provided by the ITUC and the allegations filed with the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Ethnic Groups and Cultural Heritage, the members and leaders of indigenous and Afro-Honduran communities continue to face a climate of violence and their physical and psychological integrity remains under threat. The Committee hopes that, in the same way as the perpetrators, the instigators of the murder of Berta Caceres will finally be punished. The Committee recalls that for indigenous and tribal peoples to be able to assert and enjoy the rights set out in the Convention, governments must adopt appropriate measures to guarantee a climate free from violence, pressure, fear and threats of any kind. The Committee firmly urges the Government to continue taking all the necessary measures to: protect the life and physical and psychological integrity of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, and their representatives and leaders; ensure the full and effective exercise of their human rights; and ensure that those responsible are held accountable and the perpetrators and instigators of the crimes committed against these persons, in the context of the peaceful assertion of their rights, are punished (including in the new cases reported by the ITUC). The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in this respect, in particular on the protection measures requested by the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Ethnic Groups and Cultural Heritage, the investigations carried out following the complaints received, and the legal proceedings in process.

Articles 6 and 7. Appropriate consultation and participation procedures. The Committee noted previously the development of a draft regulatory framework respecting the prior, free and informed consultation of indigenous peoples, and the submission by the Government of a draft Bill to the National Congress, which subsequently established a special commission to examine the Bill on consultation. The Committee requested the Government to ensure that the peoples covered by the Convention are consulted and are able to participate in an appropriate manner in the development of the regulatory framework for consultation.

The Government indicates that, due to fact that the state of emergency declared in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic remains in force throughout the country, it has not been possible to initiate the consultation process with all indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples. However, the Committee notes the Government’s reiterated indication that, with the aim of resuming the activities in the congressional commission, outreach meetings were held through video conferences with certain representatives of indigenous peoples, although not everyone could participate.

The Committee observes that the ITUC refers again to the rejection by some representatives of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples of the action taken by the Government in relation to the draft Bill on prior, free and informed consultation, both concerning the 2016 outreach workshops (due to the inadequate representation of indigenous and Afro-Honduran communities) and in the context of the preparation of a new draft for submission to the Congress which was not consulted or disseminated to the communities.

The Committee considers it of the utmost importance that the regulatory framework for prior consultation is subject to a full, free and informed consultation process with all indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, and urges the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, through their institutions, are able to participate in this consultation process in a manner that is appropriate to the circumstances and, so that they can express their opinions and have an influence on the final outcome of the process. Pending the adoption of the law, the Committee recalls the obligation of the Government to consult the peoples covered by the Convention in relation to any legislative or administrative measure that may affect them directly, and once again requests the Government to provide information on the consultation processes held and their outcomes.

Articles 20, 24 and 25. Protection of the rights of the Misquito people. The Committee previously welcomed the comprehensive approach adopted to grant comprehensive compensation to the victims of dive-fishing and their families and to improve the living and working conditions of the members of the Misquito community. Both the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee in 2021 requested the Government to continue adopting effective measures in this respect.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on: (1) the adoption in October 2020 of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations for Dive-Fishing and an action plan for its implementation. The purpose of the Regulations is to develop and apply legal, technical and administrative measures for the prevention of employment accidents and occupational diseases on fishing vessels and during work related to the activity of underwater dive-fishing; and (2) the updating of the Pluriannual Strategic Plan of the Inter-Institutional Commission for Problem Prevention and Assistance in Dive-Fishing (CIAPEB) for the period 2020-2025 and the activities carried out with the participation of the Misquito people between 2015 and 2019 for the implementation and evaluation of the plan. The Committee observes that the Strategic Plan 2020-2025 aims, inter alia, to: improve the development of human capital and social development within the Misquito population; contribute to the improvement of the livelihoods of the families of disabled divers and of active divers; improve access to justice for the Misquito population; and strengthen the capacities of local organizations and State institutions to promote respect for human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples.

The Committee observes the view of COHEP that these measures demonstrate that significant progress has been made, and that it is the responsibility of the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security, through the Labour Inspection Directorate and the other government institutions involved, to ensure strict compliance with both the regulations and the Strategic Plan, and to guarantee decent recruitment and employment conditions for Misquito divers. While the ITUC recognizes that the Government has implemented several health and compensation measures for Misquito divers, it expresses concern at the deplorable situation that they continue to face, with precarious working conditions without adequate occupational safety measures.

The Committee observes that, in its decision in the case of the Miskito (Lemoth Morris and others) v. Honduras, of 31 August 2021, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights approved the amicable settlement agreement reached between the parties, in which the Government and the representatives of victims agreed on comprehensive reparations for victims through a series of measures (such as restitution and satisfaction measures, financial measures, and guarantees of non-recurrence).

The Committee encourages the Government to continue taking measures to improve the working conditions of Misquito divers, including through prevention and capacity-building activities, and for the labour inspectorate to ensure the effective application of the legal framework regulating dive-fishing. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken in the context of the implementation of the Strategic Plan 2020-2025, and particularly to improve the development of human capital and social development in the Misquito population.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2023.]

The Committee notes the Government’s second report on the application of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, as amended (MLC, 2006), as well as the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received on 31 August 2021. The Committee notes that the amendments to the Code approved by the International Labour Conference in 2016 and 2018, entered into force for Honduras respectively on 8 January 2019 and 26 December 2020. The Committee welcomes the adoption of Decree No. 93-2019, which approved the Special Act for the recruitment, placement and hiring of Honduran seafarers in the Cruise Industry (the “Special Act”). Following a second review of the information and documents available, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following issues.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee notes the observations of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), received by the Office on 1 and 26 October 2020 and 4 October 2021, alleging that ratifying States did not comply with certain provisions of the Convention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Noting with deep concern the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on protection of the rights of seafarers established under the Convention, the Committee refers to its general observation of 2020 and its comments in the general report of 2021 on this issue, and requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any temporary measures adopted in this regard, their duration and their impact on seafarers’ rights.

Article II, paragraphs 1(f) and 2 of the Convention. Definitions and scope of application. Seafarers. In its previous comment, noting that section 264 of the Labour Code excludes from the definition of seafarer such persons as the master, the officers, the doctor, hospital and clinic staff, and it is not clear from the provisions cited whether apprentices, who are not part of the crew, are considered to be seafarers, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the protection provided by the Convention benefited all seafarers covered by the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Decree No. 93-2019 approved the Special Act for the recruitment, placement and hiring of Honduran seafarers in the Cruise Industry (the “Special Act”). The Committee notes that section 4(8) of the Act defines seafarers as “any natural person of Honduran nationality or domiciled in Honduras, trained and certified by the General Directorate of the Merchant Navy (DGMM), in accordance with the regulations accrediting occupational knowledge and capabilities, recruited to work abroad, in any capacity, on board a cruise ship flying a foreign and national flag”. While noting with interest this new definition which applies to the cruise industry, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to amend section 264 of the Labour Code to give full effect to Article II of the Convention in respect of all ships covered thereby. The Committee also requests the Government to confirm whether apprentices are considered to be seafarers for the purposes of the Convention.

Article II, paragraph 1(a) and VII. Competent authorities and consultations. In its previous comment, the Committee requested information on the absence of consultations with the representative organizations of shipowners and seafarers within the framework of the MLC, 2006. The Committee notes that the Government reports in this respect that in order to ensure application of the Convention a preliminary draft of the Regulations governing the Special Law is being prepared within the Secretariat and that once the text has been reviewed by the institution’s experts, a tripartite meeting with the employers and workers will be convened to review and provide inputs to the draft. The Committee notes that the COHEP reports that it has no knowledge of consultations held with the representative organizations of shipowners and workers convened either by the Economic and Social Council (CES) or by the State Secretariat for Labour and Social Security (STSS). The Committee reiterates the importance of the consultations required under Article VII of the Convention and requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to comply thoroughly with the Convention.

Article V. Implementation and enforcement. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide details of the measures adopted to give effect to Article V of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 8 of the Special Act refers to conduct that is prohibited to employment agencies, while section 32 defines irregular recruitment, which is subject to a fine, “without prejudice to the corresponding criminal liability”. The Committee notes, according to the information provided by the Government, that development of the regulations for the Special Law is pending. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard as well as details on any measure adopted to give effect to Article V with regard to all ships covered by the Convention.

Regulation 1.1. Standard A1.1, paragraph 1. Minimum age. Observing that section 239 of the Labour Code prohibits work on board ship for minors aged under 16 years, apart from students or apprentices on board training ships approved and monitored by the Secretariat for Public Education, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that employment of minors under 16 years of age is prohibited on board ships flying the national flag. In view of the lack of new information on this point, the Committee requests the Government to adopt without delay the necessary measures to comply fully with Standard A1.1, paragraph 1.

Regulation 1.1. Standard A1.1, paragraphs 2 and 3. Minimum age. Night work. Noting that section 129 of the Labour Code prohibits “night work and overtime hours for minors under 16 years of age”, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures adopted to give effect to Standard A1.1, paragraph 2, which prohibits, with certain exceptions, night work for seafarers under the age of 18. In the absence of a response on this point, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with these requirements of the Convention, specifying the definition of the term “night” for the purposes of Standard A1.1, paragraph 2.

Regulation 1.1. Standard A1.1, paragraph 4. Minimum age. Hazardous work. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that the regulation on child labour, reformed under Agreement STSS-441-16, lists hazardous work prohibited for minors under 18 years of age without taking into account the particularities of work on ships. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in this regard it will convene the organizations of shipowners and of seafarers to compile a list of hazardous work in the maritime sector. The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to compile a list of hazardous work in the maritime sector, in conformity with the requirements of the Convention and to inform it on all progress achieved.

Regulation 1.2 and Standard A1.2, paragraph 1. Medical certificate. Examination prior to beginning work. Observing that the scope of Agreement No. 016-2012, of 19 April appears to be limited to seafarers who opt for certification or endorsement, the Committee requested the Government to clarify how it gives effect to Standard A1.2, paragraph 1 with regard to all seafarers covered by the Convention. In the absence of information on this point, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to give effect to Regulation 1.2 and Standard A1.2, paragraph 1 with regard to all seafarers covered by the Convention, including seafarers who perform tasks on board without forming part of the ship’s crew and whose work is not directly related to navigation.

Regulation 1.3, paragraph 2. Training and qualifications. Personal safety on board ship. In its previous comment, the Committee requested clarification in respect of the scope of Agreement No. 005-2016, of 17 March, which refers to a basic maritime safety course. The Committee notes that in this regard the Government indicates that there is a curricular framework for training, in conformity with the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW), which was approved by Agreement No. 21-2012, of 30 April 2012, and refers to the evaluations conducted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) concerning the full application by Honduras of this Convention (resolution MSC.1/CIRC.1164/Rev.22 of 9 December 2020). The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4. Recruitment and placement. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that nine seafarers’ unions act as private recruitment and placement services and that the State of Honduras does not provide public recruitment and placement services. The Committee recalls that Standard A1.4, paragraph 3 allows shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations in the territory of a Member to supply private recruitment and placement services solely in respect of seafarers that are nationals of the Member and of ships flying its flag, and requested the Government to indicate the measures adopted to bring its legislation into conformity with Regulation A1.4 and the Code. In this regard, the Committee notes with interest that the provisions of the Special Act mentioned above that establish a system whereby employment agencies that recruit or place Honduran seafarers in the cruise industry are authorized by, and under the supervision of, the State Secretariat for Labour and Social Security. Noting the limited scope of the Special Act, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to the requirements of Standard A1.4 with regard to all sectors in which recruitment and placement services for seafarers operate.

Regulation 1.4 and Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi). Recruitment and placement. System of protection. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to give full effect to Standard A1.4, paragraph 5(c)(vi). In this regard, the Committee notes that both the Government and the COHEP refer to the Special Act, section 7 of which makes it obligatory for employment agencies to establish a protection system, through an insurance, or by other appropriate equivalent means, in conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes that development of the regulations for the Special Law is pending. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any development in this regard, as well as details on the manner in which the system is applied in practice.

Regulations 2.1 and 2.2 and Standards A2.1, paragraph 7 and A2.2 paragraph 7. Seafarers’ employment agreement and wages. Captivity as a result of acts of piracy and armed robbery against vessels. With regard to the amendments of 2018 to the Code, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following questions included in the revised report form for the Convention: (a) Do laws or regulations provide that a seafarer’s employment agreement shall continue to have effect while the seafarer is held captive on or off the ship as a result of acts of piracy or armed robbery against ships?; (b) How are the terms piracy and armed robbery against ships defined under national legislation? (Standard A2.1, paragraph 7); and (c) Do laws or regulations provide that wages and other entitlements under the seafarers’ employment agreement, relevant collective bargaining agreement or applicable national laws, including the remittance of any allotments, shall continue to be paid during the entire period of captivity and until the seafarer is released and duly repatriated or, where the seafarer dies while in captivity, until the date of death in accordance with national legislation? (Standard A2.2, paragraph 7). The Committee requests the Government to reply to the above questions, in each case indicating the applicable national provisions.

Regulation 2.1 and standard A2.1, paragraphs 5 and 6. Seafarers’ employment agreement. Minimum notice period for termination. Shorter notice period for urgent reasons. In its previous comment, the Committee requested details of the measures that give effect to these requirements of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the Special Act, section 23 of which regulates termination of the employment contract and section 26 of which refers to compensation, entitlements and benefits in case of early termination of the employment contract. Noting however that neither of these provisions establishes a notice period different from those set out in sections 116, 222, 226 and 250 of the Labour Code, or provides for a shorter or non-existent period of notice for early termination of the employment contract for humanitarian reasons, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to Standard A2.1, paragraph 5, and to provide information on the application of Standard A2.1, paragraph 6.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1 and paragraph 1(b). Seafarers’ employment agreement. Examination and advice before signing. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that the Act on seafarers’ recruitment does not require that seafarers should have the opportunity to examine the employment agreement and to seek advice before signing, in conformity with the provisions of Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(b). The Committee notes with interest that the Special Act’s section 7(2) establishes that employment agencies “shall ensure that seafarers are aware of the rights and obligations provided under the employment contracts before, during and after the process of recruitment and that appropriate measures shall be adopted to allow seafarers to revise and analyse their employment contract, before signing it, in as many original copies as may be necessary and to provide copies to the parties concerned”. Noting that the Special Act applies exclusively to intermediation in the cruise industry, the Committee requests the Government to adopt appropriate legislative measures to give effect to Standard A2.1, paragraph 1(b) for all seafarers covered by the Convention.

Regulation 2.1 and Standard A2.1 paragraphs 1(e) and 3. Seafarers’ employment agreement. Record of employment. In its previous comment, the Committee recalled that the record of employment and the employment agreement differ in form and purpose. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the Special Act. Noting however that the Special Act contains no provisions in respect of the record of employment on board, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to Standard A2.1, paragraphs 1(e) and 3 of the Convention.

Regulation 2.3 and the Code. Hours of work and hours of rest. In its previous comment, the Committee observed that Agreement No. 44-2012 of the DGMM on hours of rest and watchkeeping by seafarers, which incorporates the STCW into national law, only gives partial effect to Regulation 2.3. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 17 of the Special Act regulates ordinary working hours, while section 18 regulates overtime hours. The Committee observes that although the Act cited establishes a maximum of 72 hours of work in each period of seven days, it does not fix a maximum of 14 hours in each period of 24 hours. The Committee requests the Government to amend the Special Act on this point to give full effect to the Convention. It also observes that the Special Act applies solely to the cruise industry, and requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give full effect to Regulation 2.3 for all seafarers covered by the Convention.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 3. Hours of work and hours of rest. Normal working hours standard. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which Standard A2.3, paragraph 3 is applied, including with respect to seafarers under the age of 18. The Committee observes that section 17 of the Special Act regulates the ordinary working day and that section 19 refers to public holidays. Noting that the Government does not provide information on other legislative provisions, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to give full effect to the requirements provided by Standard A2.3, paragraph 3, including information on the hours of work and hours of rest of young seafarers.

Regulation 2.3 and Standard A2.3, paragraph 12. Hours of work and hours of rest. Records. In its previous comment, recalling that Standard A2.3, paragraph 12 requires that each seafarer receive a copy of the records pertaining to him or her, which shall be endorsed by the master, or a person authorized by the master, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to this requirement of the Convention. Observing that the information provided by the Government does not respond to its comment, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give full effect to Standard A2.3, paragraph 12.

Regulation 2.4 and Standard A2.4, paragraphs 1 and 2. Entitlement annual leave. Minimum paid annual leave. Method of calculation. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to give effect to Standard A2.4, paragraphs 1 and 2. The Committee notes with interest that sections 11(8) and 21 of the Special Act regulate paid annual leave and the method of calculation for the cruise industry, in conformity with the provisions of the Convention. Observing however that the Act cited does not apply to all seafarers covered by the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to give full effect to Standard A2.4, paragraphs 1 and 2.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1. Repatriation. Circumstances. The Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information with respect to the measures adopted to give effect to Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 2, for all seafarers covered by the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government refers to provisions regarding repatriation in the Special Act, section 23 of which regulates repatriation at no cost to the seafarer, without prejudice to the provisions of collective agreements or to “agreements concluded between the parties in respect of contractual assignments for reasons solely and exclusively attributable to the seafarer”. The Committee requests the Government to explain what is to be understood by the latter agreements in respect of contractual assignments, which do not appear to be in conformity with the provisions of the Convention. Moreover, observing that the Special Act only applies to the cruise industry, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to give full effect to Regulation 2.5, paragraph 1 and to Standard A2.5.1, paragraphs 1 and 2, specifying the applicable legislation.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3. Repatriation. Prohibition of advance payment and to recover costs from seafarers. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to indicated the measures taken to ensure that all provisions in national law which deprive seafarers of this right are limited to the circumstances permitted in the Convention and to provide information on the manner in which it is ensured that shipowners pay for the repatriation in all cases in which seafarers are entitled to this right. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the Special Act. Observing however that the Act cited has no provisions regulating this matter, the Committee requests that the Government adopt all necessary measures to give full effect to Standard A2.5.1, paragraph 3.

Regulation 2.5 and Standard A2.5.2. Repatriation. Financial security. In its previous comment, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures adopted to give effect to Standard A2.5.2. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the Special Act which, however, does not give effect to this Standard. The Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to Standard A2.5.2.

Regulation 2.7 and the Code. Manning levels. The Committee requested the Government to specify how it gives effect to Standard A2.7, paragraph 3 which requires, when determining manning levels, that the competent authority take into account all the requirements within Regulation 3.2 and Standard A2.5.2 concerning food and catering. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 7(5) of the Special Act establishes that the employer is obliged to provide food and water of good quality. Noting that the Government does not reply to its request, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to give effect to Standard A2.7, paragraph 3 of the Convention.

Regulation 3.1 and the Code. Accommodation and recreational facilities. The Committee requested the Government to provide further information on the application of this Regulation. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the Inspection Regulation recognizing and issuing maritime safety certificates for vessels registered in Honduras, Agreement No. 000836-B of 8 November 1995, later amended. The Government also refers to section 11 of the Special Act, under which employers have the obligation to “provide accommodation and safe and adequate recreational facilities”. Noting that the Inspection Regulation does not include the measures provided under Regulation 3.1 and the Code and that the Special Act does not give effect to these requirements either, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary legislation to give effect to Standard A3.1.

Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2, paragraphs 1 and 2. Food and catering. Minimum standards. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that, once ratified, a Convention is incorporated into national law and that, in consequence, Standard A3.2, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the MLC, 2006 are directly applicable. Recalling that Regulation 3.2 constitutes a framework of general principles on food and catering and requires the adoption of laws and regulations or other measures to provide minimum standards for the quantity and quality of food and drinking water and for the catering, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures adopted to give full effect to these requirements of the Convention. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government regarding the existence of certification inspections carried out through recognized organizations holding valid public service contracts with the Administration of the DGMM and the obligation of the employer to provide food and water of good quality is established in section 11(13) of the Special Act. Noting that these provisions do not apply the minimum standards required under Standard A3.2, paragraphs 1 and 2, the Committee once again requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give full effect to the requirements provided under Standard A3.2, paragraphs 1 and 2.

Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2, paragraphs 3 and 4. Food and catering. Training. The Committee requested the Government to provide details on the training course in line with Standard A3.3, paragraph 4. The Committee takes note of this.

Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2, paragraph 7. Food and catering. Inspections. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the applicable legislative measures and to specify who carries out inspections and the matters which must be subject to inspection. The Committee notes that the Government refers to the Special Act mentioned above. Observing that the Special Act does not regulate this matter, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to Standard A3.2, paragraph 7.

Regulation 3.2 and Standard A3.2, paragraph 8. Food and catering. Ship’s cook. Minimum age. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the absence of specific legislation to regulate this matter. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that one of the requirements laid down by the Occupational Training Institute (INFOP) to obtain cook’s certification is to be over 18 years of age. While taking note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that in no circumstances may a minor of under 18 years of age be employed or contracted to work as a cook on board a ship.

Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1. Medical care on board and ashore. The Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to give effect to Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1, paragraphs 1 and 4 with respect to seafarers who work on board ships that fly the Honduran flag. The Committee notes that the Government refers to section 11(9) of the Special Act, under which the employer has the obligation to “provide health protection by means of the medical health care on board”. Observing that the Special Act does not establish specific measures required by these provisions of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to Regulation 4.1 and Standard A4.1, paragraphs 1 and 4, with respect to seafarers who work on board ships that fly the Honduran flag.

Regulation 4.2 and the Code. Shipowners’ liability. The Committee requested the Government to specify whether the pertinent Labour Code provisions apply to seafarers covered by the Convention, detailing the manner in which this legislation gives effect to the requirements of Standard A4.2.1, paragraphs 1 to 7. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Honduras is in the process of brining its legislation into line with the provisions of the MLC, 2006. The Government also refers in this regard to the abovementioned Special Act. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any new measure adopted to give full effect to Regulation 4.2 and the Code.

Regulation 4.2 and Standards A4.2.1 and A4.2.2. Shipowners’ liability. Financial security in the event of death or long-term disability. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures that give effect to Standards A4.2.1 and A4.2.2. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the minimum requirements of the system of financial security set out in Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 8 are established under Special Act sections 28(6), on compensation and benefits for employment accidents or occupational diseases, and section 29 on compensation and other entitlements in the event of death. Observing that the Special Act reiterates the contents of section 8 of DGMM Agreement No. 11-2017 and that there are no provisions in sections 28 and 29 of the Special Act to ensure compliance with Standard A4.2.1, paragraph 8, with the single exception of the mention of the persons who must be paid compensation in the event of the death of the seafarer, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to Standard A4.2.1 and A4.2.2 for all seafarers covered by the Convention.

Regulation 4.3 and Standard A4.3, paragraphs 1 to 4. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. National requirements and guidelines. The Committee requested the Government to indicate any measures adopted to adapt the standards on occupational safety and health set out in the Labour Code to the specific conditions of the maritime sector. The Committee notes that the Government and the COHEP refer to section 11(17) of the Special Act, which establishes, inter alia, that the employer shall provide a work space where safety and health standards may be complied with. Observing the general character of this provision, which does not reflect the detailed requirements of the Convention and the scope of which is moreover limited to the cruise industry, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to Standard A4.3, paragraphs 1 to 4, and provide information on the adoption of national guidelines for the management of occupational safety and health on board ships.

Regulation 4.3 and Standard A4.3 paragraphs 5, 6 and 8. Health and safety protection and accident prevention. Reporting, statistics and investigation. The Committee requested the Government to provide further details, in the light of Standard A4.3, paragraphs 5 and 6, on the manner in which statistics on occupational accidents and diseases relating to seafarers are reported, investigated and published. Noting that the Government reports that it has no statistical data available, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give full effect to Standard A4.3, paragraphs 5 and 6.

Regulation 4.5 and the Code. Social security. The Committee requested the Government to confirm whether all seafarers covered by the Convention ordinarily resident in Honduras, including non-nationals, are covered by the national social security scheme in a way no less favourable than that enjoyed by shoreworkers. In the absence of detailed information on this point, the Committee reiterates its request.

Regulations 5.1.1 and 5.1.4 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. Inspection and enforcement. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to indicate measures adopted to establish an effective and coordinated system of inspection of the conditions for seafarers on board ships that fly its flag. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that certification inspections and annual inspections are carried out through recognized organizations holding valid public service contracts with the Maritime Administration of Honduras. The Committee takes note of this information.

Regulation 5.1.2 and Standard A5.1.2. Flag State responsibilities. Authorization of recognized organizations. The Committee requested the Government to provide the text containing the provisions which empower the recognized authorities to perform the functions of inspection and certification with respect to the MLC, 2006, as well as information on the requirements for the recognition and authorization of these organizations, the list of organizations and a copy of the delegation agreement. The Committee notes that the Government refers to DGMM circular 001/2021, which contains elements of the guidelines formulated by the IMO. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to specify the recognized organizations that have been authorized to carry out inspection and certification functions with regard to the MLC 2006.

Regulation 5.1.3 and the Code. Flag State responsibilities. Maritime Labour Certificate and Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance. In reply to the Committee’s request, the Government has provided a copy of the Maritime Labour Declaration of Conformity (DMLC), part II, as well as a copy of a maritime labour certificate and of a provisional certificate. Observing that the DMLC, part II is completely blank, the Committee requests the Government to provide one or more copies of the DMLC, part II, duly certified by the competent authority.

Regulation 5.1.5 and Standard A5.1.5. Flag State responsibilities. On-board complaints procedures. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures adopted to establish appropriate procedures for handling complaints on board that comply with the requirements in Regulation 5.1.5. The Committee notes that the Government and the COHEP indicate that the Special Act regulates the right to submit complaints of seafarers covered by the Convention. Observing however that the Special Act does not appear to regulate the procedure for any complaint, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to Regulation 5.1.5 and Standard A5.1.5.

Regulation 5.1.6. Flag State responsibilities. Marine casualties. In its previous comment, noting that there was no rule in domestic law to give effect to Regulation 5.1.6, the Committee requested the Government to indicate measures adopted in this regard. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the measures adopted with respect to investigation of marine accidents are those set out in IMO resolution A.849 (20). Observing that this resolution does not apply to the MLC, 2006, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to Regulation 5.1.6.

Regulation 5.2.2 and the Code. Port State responsibilities. Onshore seafarer complaint-handling. In its previous comment, since no information had been provided, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures adopted to give effect to Regulation 5.2.2. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government states that the Viña del Mar Latin-American Agreement on Port State Control gives effect to Regulation 5.2.2. Observing however that this matter is not regulated by domestic law, the Committee requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give effect to Regulation 5.2.2 and the Code, and to provide information in that regard.

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020) and the Government’s indication that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a serious impact on the submission of its supplementary report. The Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

The Committee notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received on 1 October 2020, relating to the minimum wage, the distribution of the benefits awarded to workers in the maquila industry, compliance with the principle of the Convention, objective job evaluation, cooperation with employers' and workers' organizations, and application in practice through the work of the labour inspectorate, as well as the Government’s reply received on 6 November 2020.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. National policy and plans. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to improve women’s access to a broader range of occupations that offer career prospects and higher wages. The Committee notes the information provided in this respect and refers to its detailed comments on the application of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), particularly with regard to the elimination of gender stereotypes.

Article 2. Minimum wages. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women for work of equal value in the context of the determination of minimum wages. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Minimum Wage Commission sets minimum wages in accordance with the country’s current economic and social indices. The Committee also notes COHEP’s indication in its observation that, when setting the minimum wage, matters relating to the gender pay gap are not taken into consideration. The Committee also notes the adoption of Executive Decision No. STSS-006-2019 which sets minimum wages by branch of activity for 2019 and 2020, and approves the minimum wage for the maquila industry for 2019 to 2023, signed in the tripartite Agreement for the Promotion, Investment, Generation, Protection and Development of Decent Employment, Health, Access to Credit, Consolidation of Debt and Access to Housing of Workers in the Honduran Maquiladora Textile Sector and other Companies in the Free Zone, signed on 13 December 2018 (Maquila Sector Agreement). The Committee notes that the level of the minimum wage in the maquila sector, which is predominantly female, is the second lowest, just above the level applicable to small enterprises in agriculture, forestry, hunting and fishing. In this respect, the Committee notes the indication by the Government and COHEP that, as well as setting the minimum wage, the Maquila Sector Agreement provides that the Government and the Honduran Association of Maquiladoras (AHM) shall provide other benefits, including the purchase of social housing and access to childcare facilities. The Committee recalls that the fact that minimum wage legislation does not distinguish between men and women is not sufficient in itself to ensure that the process is not affected by gender bias, and that special attention is needed in the design or adjustment of sectoral minimum wage schemes to ensure that the rates fixed are free from gender bias, and in particular that certain skills considered to be “female” are not undervalued (see General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 683). In this respect, the Committee observes that Part Four of Executive Decision No. STSS-006-2019 refers, with regard to monitoring the payment of minimum wages, to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women workers for work of equal value. The Committee requests the Government to take measures so that the principle of equal pay for men and women for work of equal value is taken into consideration, not only in relation to the monitoring of the payment of minimum wage rates, but also in the mechanisms that set those rates, to ensure that certain skills deemed to be “female” are not undervalued and are taken sufficiently into account, as opposed to traditionally “masculine” skills. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the distribution in practice of benefits granted to maquila industry workers (percentage of beneficiaries, value attributed to the benefits, etc.). Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of Part Four of Executive Agreement No. STSS-006-2019.

Article 3. Objective job evaluation. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that, when adopting any objective job evaluation mechanism, it allows the measurement and comparison of jobs on the basis of objective criteria. The Committee notes that the Government does not indicate in its report whether there is an objective job evaluation mechanism. It also notes that COHEP as well as the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) and the Workers’ Confederation of Honduras (CTH) indicate that no objective job evaluation mechanism is in place. In this respect, COHEP indicates that it took part in preparing the OHN-3001 standard on the gender equality control system. The Committee recalls that the Convention requires the adoption of measures to promote the objective evaluation of jobs and that evaluation methods are formal procedures which, through analysing the content of jobs, give a numerical value to each job (see General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 700). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether such procedures exist and, if so, at which levels (national, sectoral, company, etc.). Noting that the business sector has developed a voluntary standard on a gender equity control system, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether that system includes an objective job evaluation method.

Article 4. Cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to take measures in order to conduct awareness-raising activities on the importance of the principle, targeting employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes that, in this respect, the Government refers to the Gender Equality and Equity Plan II 2010-2022 (II PIEGH). The Committee also notes the indication by COHEP that it participated in the tripartite working group on employment and gender for the implementation of the plan and that the Government did not raise the issue of the pay gap with employers. The Committee notes that, in its response to the observations of COHEP, the Government indicates that this issue was discussed in the Economic and Social Council (CES), in the context of the Table on International Labour Standards, whose members have agreed that it was necessary to raise awareness on the principle included in the Convention with employers and workers, for which it was suggested to request the technical assistance of the ILO. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on its collaboration with employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned, in the context of the tripartite working group on employment and gender of the Economic and Social Council (CES), and in other forums, in order to apply the principle of equal pay for men and women for work of equal value.

Application in practice. Labour inspection. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of the principle in practice. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that it expects positive results following the adoption of the Labour Inspection Act, by means of Decree No. 178-2016 (Labour Inspection Act) which increases the applicable penalties in relation to minimum wages. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that there are no recorded complaints about the payment of lower wages to women. The Committee recalls the importance of training for labour inspectors in order to increase their ability to prevent, detect and settle cases of discrimination in relation to pay (see General Survey of 2012, paragraph 875). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on labour inspection activities relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women for work of equal value.

The Committee notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received on 1 October 2020 concerning the compilation of statistics and consultations with the social partners and the Government’s reply received on 6 November 2020.

The Committee notes the supplementary information provided by the Government on the matters raised in the direct request addressed to it, and reiterates the content of its observation adopted in 2019, which is repeated as follows.

The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), the Workers’ Confederation of Honduras (CTH) and COHEP, sent with the Government’s report, as well as the observations of the COHEP, received on 2 September 2019 and the response of the Government received on 9 October 2019.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Gender pay gap. Statistics. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the progress it had made to reduce the gender pay gap. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that since 2018, the pay gap has been more favourable to women in the private and public sectors, given that women have higher levels of schooling and work more in urban areas. In this regard, the Government provides a set of data disaggregated by sex, including statistics on: average income by branch of activity, minimum wages by branch of activity, and minimum wages by occupation (levels of responsibility). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it lacks information to be able to conduct an analysis, explaining that the only source of information on the labour market is the permanent household survey of National Institute of Statistics (INE). The Committee notes that, in their observations, the CGT and CTH indicate that, in practice, significant gender pay gaps do exist, particularly in the public sector, and that it would be important to make a comparison by position. The Committee also notes that, in its observations, the COHEP indicates that the statistical data provided by the Government needs to be reviewed and refers to a series of surveys conducted by businesses on the participation of women in the workplace (the report on women in business management “Mujeres en la gestión empresarial” and the Market Systems Survey Analysis “Encuesta de diagnóstico sistemas de mercado” and the projects on Human Rights Due Diligence of Companies in relation to the Supply Chain “La debida diligencia empresarial en materia de derechos humanos en relación con la cadena de suministros”). COHEP notes that 98 per cent of companies consulted as part of the project on Human Rights Due Diligence of Companies in relation to the Supply Chain provide equal pay to men and women for the performance of the same work. While noting this information, the Committee observes that the data provided do not allow the comparison of the pay of men and women in different positions and at levels of responsibility by which may nonetheless be of equal value. In so doing, the Committee draws to the attention of the Government that the principle of equal pay for work of equal value not only requires equal pay for the same work but also equal remuneration for jobs that may be entirely different but nevertheless of equal value (see 2012 General Survey on fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 667 and 679). In order to be able to conduct a detailed analysis and with full knowledge of the facts on the gender pay gap, the Committee requests the Government to make every effort to compile the most comprehensive statistics possible on the level of pay for men and women in the private and public sectors. In this regard, the Committee refers in particular to its general observation concerning the application of the Convention adopted in 1998.

Article 1(b). Work of equal value. Legislation. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 367 of the Labour Code and section 44 of the Equal Opportunities for Women Act (LIOM), as well as Decree No. 27-2015, do not ensure the application of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value, and requested the Government to report on any legislative amendments. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that: (1) labour law reform begins with the submission to the Economic and Social Council (CES) of the intention to reform or amend the Labour Code; and (2) the National Institute for Women (INAM) has initiated a proposal to reform the LIOM and a number of meetings between representatives of the various state institutions and of civil society have been held on that matter; and (3) the highest-ranking authorities have been informed so that they can begin taking the necessary measures to bring the labour legislation into line with international Conventions. The Committee also notes that, in its observations, the COHEP indicates that no employers’ association has been convened to analyse the LIOM reform, and that it has not been submitted to the CES. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure that the legislation duly reflects the principle of equal pay for men and women for jobs that are of a different nature, but are of equal value, and requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

The Committee also recalls the importance of consultations with the social partners in the process of labour law reform, and trusts that the Government will ensure this occurs in relation to any measures implementing the principle of the Convention.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government in light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020). The Committee is examining the application of the Convention on the basis of the supplementary information received from the Government this year, as well as the information at its disposal in 2019.

The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) and the Workers’ Confederation of Honduras (CTH), communicated by the Government with its 2019 report, and those received on 5 October 2020. The Committee also notes the Government’s responses to these observations, received on 30 October 2020. The Committee further notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received on 2 September 2019 and 1 October 2020. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s replies to these observations, received on 9 October 2019 and 6 November 2020.

COVID-19 pandemic. Socio-economic impact. Response and recovery measures. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its supplementary report on the measures and action adopted within the framework of the National Health Emergency declared by the Government on 10 February 2020 with a view to guaranteeing the stability of jobs and the productive sustainability of enterprises in the country. In particular, the Government provides several communications of the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security (STSS), published between March and August 2020, adopting measures such as: procedures to request the suspension of employment contracts under certain conditions, measures to be followed for reinstatement in employment, and the possibility to conclude written agreements between workers and employers to determine the days of the health emergency to be taken as annual leave. The Committee also notes the adoption on 3 April 2020 of Decree No. 33-2020, the Act to support the productive sector and workers in light of the effects of the pandemic with a view to the maintenance of employment and the sustainability of enterprises during the national health emergency. In this respect, Decree No. 33-2020 includes such measures as a solidarity contribution for the temporary preservation of jobs and incomes of workers in the private sector during the national emergency (sections 25, 26 and 27), guarantees concerning access to health care for all workers through the Honduras Social Security Institute (IHSS) (section 29) and the possibility to conclude agreements through social dialogue for the adoption of measures offering greater benefits (section 31). The Committee also notes the adoption on 13 March 2020 of Decree No. 31-2020, the Special Act on economic recovery and social protection in light of the effects of coronavirus, which includes support measures for entrepreneurship during the crisis (section 7). The Government also refers to the establishment, within the framework of the EURO+LABOR programme, of a system for the compilation and analysis of data which has focussed on investigating the socio-economic impact of the pandemic. Finally, the Committee notes that the COHEP reports the holding of tripartite meetings within the framework of the Decent Work Sectoral Round Table (MSED) throughout 2020, in which measures were agreed for the adaptation of the Honduras National Employment Policy (PNEH) and the Joint Action Framework (MAC) to the new situation faced by the country as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the context of the pandemic, the Committee recalls the broad guidance provided by international labour standards. In this respect, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the Employment and Decent Work for Peace and Resilience Recommendation, 2017 (No. 205), which is a useful guide for the formulation and implementation, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, of inclusive measures to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment opportunities and decent work as an effective response to the deep-rooted socio-economic effects of the crisis. The Committee invites the Government to provide updated information on the impact of the pandemic on the implementation of the national policies and programmes adopted with a view to guaranteeing the objectives of the Convention, especially in relation to the most vulnerable population groups.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Implementation of a national employment policy. Consultations with the social partners. The Committee notes with interest the approval in May 2017, following consultation with the social partners within the framework of the Economic and Social Council (CES) of the Honduras National Employment Policy (PNEH). The general objective of the policy is to increase the productive capacity of Hondurans. The policy is articulated around the following strategic areas: competitiveness, employment generation (especially for women and youth), the development of “human capital”, and a conducive environment for enterprise creation and development. The policy includes action focussing on population groups facing the greatest difficulties in gaining access to quality employment, such as women, youth, persons with disabilities and people in rural areas. Following the development of the policy in the tripartite technical body called the Decent Work Sectoral Round Table (MSED), in November 2018 the Economic and Social Council approved the Joint Action Framework (MAC) as a strategic and operational instrument for the implementation of the National Employment Policy. On 20 November 2018, the Government signed with several employers’ and workers’ organizations the Tripartite Undertaking for Decent and Productive Work, thereby confirming its will to work together for the implementation of the National Employment Policy and the Joint Action Framework. The Government adds that the Economic and Social Council will play a central role in the monitoring and evaluation of the Joint Action Framework. The measures adopted are being coordinated with various Government policies, such as the Government Plan 2018-22, which envisages the adoption of measures to improve living standards, productivity and the generation of decent employment for all. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government on the measures adopted within the framework of the EURO+LABOR Programme to strengthen the Employment Service (SENAEH). The Government adds that, during the period covered by its 2019 report, seven local round tables were held in which local plans were developed for the promotion of employment and income. These round tables included the participation of employers’ associations, social organizations and public institutions with local representation. In its response to the COHEP’s observations, the Government provides detailed information on the employment generated between 2014 and 2019 through the various programmes implemented by the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security (STSS).

The Committee notes the observations of the COHEP indicating that the Government has not yet adopted measures for the implementation of the Joint Action Framework, which is still inactive. The CGT and the CTH indicate that, although the Government has adopted various employment creation programmes, they are not focussed on areas with the highest levels of precarity in terms of work, education and poverty. In this regard, the CGT and the CTH emphasize the high levels of unemployment and the importance of employment generation in rural areas. They also complain that the Government has engaged in mass dismissals in State enterprises. In its reply, the Government indicates that the loss of decent employment is a structural problem on the labour market related to the level of development of the country, which has not been conducive to ensuring that all the employment generated offers decent work. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed and updated information on the measures adopted for the generation of high quality, full, productive and freely chosen employment, including those adopted within the framework of the Honduras National Employment Policy (PNEH) and its Joint Action Framework (MAC), and the EURO+LABOR programme, and their impact, especially on the groups that are most vulnerable to decent work deficits (such as youth, women, persons with disabilities, indigenous communities and people in rural areas). In light of the observations of the COHEP, the Committee also requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures for the implementation of the Joint Action Framework (MAC). It further requests the Government to provide specific examples of the manner in which the views are taken into account of employers’ and workers’ organizations and of other groups affected by the design, implementation and evaluation of employment policies and programmes.

Article 2. Labour market trends. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government indicates that, according to the statistical data of the National Statistical Institute (INE), in 2018, the labour market participation rate was 76.25 per cent for men and 46 per cent for women. The Committee notes that, although the open unemployment rate was 5.7 per cent (4.5 per cent for men and 7.4 per cent for women), invisible underemployment (persons working over 40 hours a week with earnings below the minimum wage) was 48.6 per cent (37.2 per cent for women and 55.9 per cent for men) and visible unemployment (persons working fewer than 40 hours a week) was 14.2 per cent (20.8 per cent for women and 10 per cent for men). The Government indicates that, according to the “Diagnostic study of market systems in Honduras in 2018”, self-employment and informal employment accounted for 56.5 per cent of total employment in the country and is characterized by low wages and high instability. The Government adds that, in 2017 and 2018, the poverty level fell from 64.3 per cent to 61.9 per cent, and extreme poverty levels fell from 40.7 per cent to 38.7 per cent. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that the levels of poverty and extreme poverty in rural areas remained significantly high during the period covered by the report, at 70.3 and 58.9 per cent, respectively. In its response to COHEP’s observations, the Government indicates that measures have been adopted since 2017 to adapt the methods used by the INE for the measurement of the informal economy in the country to the concept of the informal economy (informal sector and informal employment) used by the ILO. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on labour market trends, and particularly on labour market trends prior to the pandemic, including on employment, unemployment and underemployment (visible and invisible) rates and informality, disaggregated by gender, age and rural and urban areas.

Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs). In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government reports the approval on 28 November 2018 of Decree No. 145-2018 issuing the Act on support for micro and small enterprises, the objective of which is to provide support for MSMEs through incentives, such as exemption from the payment of certain taxes, to promote economic growth and generate new employment opportunities. The Committee also notes that the National Employment Policy includes among its strategic areas the creation of a conducive environment for the creation and development of enterprises, with special emphasis on MSMEs, in view of their important contribution to employment creation. In this respect, the Joint Action Framework envisages, among other measures, the consolidation of a one-stop shop for the creation and operation of MSMEs and the establishment of Enterprise Development Centres to support them. With regard to the Bill for the social and labour inclusion of the self-employed and own-account workers, the Government indicates that on 9 April 2019 the Labour and Sectoral Affairs Commission issued its views on the Bill, which is currently awaiting submission to the Plenary of the Legislative Chamber. The COHEP indicates that the preliminary draft of the Bill was agreed to by the social partners in a meeting of the Economic and Social Council on 3 May 2016, and that in November 2019 the social partners gave their views on the Bill and on the preliminary Bill on organized integration, which envisages the establishment of the Welfare and Pensions Institute for Employers in the Informal Economy. The Committee also notes the detailed information provided by the COHEP on the various measures adopted by employers’ organizations to promote MSMEs, such as the programme for the special recognition of MSMEs, the holding of the international forum on family enterprises and the strategy of trading with micro-franchises. In its 2020 observations, the COHEP refers to the adoption of Executive Decree No. 034-2019 of 18 July 2019 establishing the National Entrepreneurship and Small Business Service (SENPRENDE) with the objective of developing policies, plans and programmes for the promotion of MSMEs, the development of entrepreneurship and enterprises in the social economy. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed and updated information on the impact of the measures adopted to support employment generation by MSMEs. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the situation with regard to the approval of the Act on the social and labour inclusion of the self-employed and own-account workers, and of the Act on organized integration, and to provide copies once they have been adopted.

Policy coordination. Education and vocational training. The Committee notes that the National Employment Policy includes among its priority areas the “development of human capital”. In this regard, the Joint Action Framework includes among its objectives: the adoption of measures to develop labour skills that correspond to labour market needs; the improvement of the capacity for labour integration and reintegration; the promotion of continuous learning: the establishment of an ordered, articulated and relevant vocational training system; and the maintenance of constant dialogue with the formal education system. The Joint Action Framework includes, among other measures: the design of a vocational training policy; the tripartite formulation of a National Policy Plan on Education and Labour; the development and implementation of a vocational skills programme based on dual training and apprenticeship; and the implementation of a training initiative for the labour market integration of vulnerable groups. The Government indicates that on 7 March 2017 the Advisory Prospective Analysis Committee was established with a view to the early identification of training needs through the prioritization of sectors, subsectors and potential development at the territorial level. The Advisory Committee is composed of public and private actors with competence in the fields of education and training, such as the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security (STSS), COHEP and the CGT, the Labour Market Observatory (OML) and the National Vocational Training Institute (INFOP). The Government also refers to the implementation of a process of the restructuring of the INFOP with the objective of promoting the employability of workers as a means of improving the quality of employment and productivity. In this regard, the COHEP reports that at the beginning of 2019 it called for the provisional closure of the INFOP and urged its enterprises not to pay the respective contributions established for the private sector. The COHEP explains that the purpose of these protests was to exert pressure for the adoption of its proposals for improvements to the INFOP. The COHEP considers that effective measures have not been adopted in practice to ensure the articulation between education, vocational training and employment policies. In reply to these observations, the Government provides information on the various types of action implemented through the Joint Action Framework with a view to promoting and improving the labour market integration of the people of Honduras. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed and updated information on the measures adopted to ensure the effective articulation of education, vocational training and employment policies and programmes, including those implemented within the context of the National Employment Policy and the Joint Action Framework, and on their impact. It also requests the Government to provide updated information on the situation with regard to the process of the restructuring of the National Vocational Training Institute (INFOP).

Women’s employment. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government indicates that the National Employment Policy and the Joint Action Framework include programmes and measures intended to promote decent work for women. The Joint Action Framework establishes equality of opportunity for men and women as a cross-cutting action and also provides for the adoption of measures to generate alternative employment and incomes for women; the development and implementation of credit programmes for women entrepreneurs; the design of flexible training and labour skills certification procedures for women with children; and the tripartite development of legislation to support the labour market integration of women heads of household. However, the COHEP considers that measures have not been taken to promote the participation of women in the formal labour market over and above those already envisaged in the National Employment Policy and the Joint Action Framework, which have not yet been implemented. The COHEP refers to various activities undertaken by employers’ organizations in relation to the wage gap, including the publication of an enterprise survey and the proposal of the strategic agenda “Women in Enterprise Management in Honduras”. Finally, the COHEP indicates that 1 472 437 women are engaged in work, including those who work on their own account or as unpaid family workers. The COHEP adds that 56 per cent of them work in the informal economy. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed and updated information on the measures envisaged or adopted with a view to promoting the increased participation of women in the formal labour market and their access to high quality, decent and lasting employment, and the impact of the measures adopted.

Youth employment. The Committee notes that, according to the statistics of the National Statistical Institute (INE), 24.3 per cent of young persons between 12 and 30 years of age in 2018 were neither studying nor working. Similarly, according to the Joint Action Framework, the educational level of the labour force is low, which directly affects the labour market. In particular, the Government indicates that 55 per cent of young persons between the ages of 12 and 14 in 2017 who were working did not attend formal education, and that this percentage rose to 76 per cent among young persons between the ages of 15 and 19 years. The Government indicates that, in response to this situation, the Joint Action Framework includes programmes to promote retention in the education system combined with the levelling of educational attainment. With regard to young persons between the ages of 12 and 14 years, the Committee refers to its 2018 observation on the application of the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), in which it noted the various provisions of the Labour Code which allow work by persons under 14 years of age under certain conditions (section 32(2)) and exclude from the scope of the Labour Code and the Regulations on child labour (2001) agricultural and stockraising undertakings which do not continually employ more than ten workers (section 2(1)). In this regard, the Committee noted the Government’s indications concerning the preparation of a draft text to revise the Labour Code which contained provisions intended to bring the national legislation into conformity with the international Conventions ratified by Honduras. With reference to the measures intended to promote the labour market integration of young persons, the Committee notes that the various strategic areas and actions of the National Employment Policy and the Joint Action Framework include relevant measures. In particular, the Joint Action Framework envisages the implementation of measures to generate alternative employment and incomes for young persons and to improve their employability through appropriate training and skills. With a view to the achievement of these objectives, the Joint Action Framework envisages the implementation, among other strategies, of action to promote the hiring of unemployed youth and to improve the access of young persons to technical education and training focussed on scientific and technological innovation, the skills of young persons in rural areas and the preparation of a tripartite proposal by the Economic and Social Council for a Bill on youth employment. The Government adds that, in 2017 and 2018, a total of 106 156 jobs were created within the framework of the programme “Con Chamba vivis Mejor” (“Life is better when you’re in work”), intended principally for young persons, heads of household and persons with disabilities living in poverty. However, the Committee notes that both the CGT and the CTH, and the COHEP indicate that the statistical data provided by the Government on the number of jobs created by the programme is not accurate. The COHEP indicates that, according to the Continuous Household Survey of the National Statistical Institute, the number of jobs fell in 2017 by 1 679 683, for which reason it does not agree with the statistics provided by the Government. In contrast, the Government defends the accuracy of the statistics provided and indicates that the data used for the compilation of official statistics are from the INE Permanent Household Survey, which are also used for the publications of international organizations, such as the ILO and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed and updated information on the nature and impact of the measures adopted to facilitate the labour market integration of the young. It also requests the Government to indicate the situation with regard to the proposal for a Bill on youth employment, and to provide a copy once it has been adopted. It further requests the Government to continue providing statistical information, disaggregated by age and gender, on youth employment trends. Finally, the Committee refers to its 2018 observation on the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), and trusts that the Government will take its comments into account during the preparation of the draft text revising the Labour Code. It also expresses the firm hope that the revised version will be adopted in the near future.

National Hourly Employment Programme (PRONEH) and job creation. In reply to its previous comments, the Committee notes the detailed statistical data provided by the Government on the jobs created by the PRONEH between 2011 and May 2019. In particular, the Government indicates that, as of May 2019, a total of 26 674 persons had been hired within the framework of the PRONEH. Of the workers hired, 53.8 per cent were men and 46.2 per cent women. The Government adds that most of the workers were contracted for full days (72.7 per cent). The Government indicates that most of the contracts were recorded in the financial, real estate and business services sector (35 per cent) and the other community, social and personal services sector (38.3 per cent). The Government adds that workers engaged for a full day receive a wage that is higher than the current minimum wage. However, the COHEP indicates that few enterprises are continuing their participation in the PRONEH, with the exception of call centres and enterprises in the tourism sector. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing detailed and updated information, disaggregated by age and gender, on the activities and impact of the PRONEH and on the extent to which its beneficiaries have found productive and sustainable jobs. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the skills training received by those workers, and any other data allowing a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the employment generated.

Impact of trade agreements. Employment and Economic Development Zones (ZEDEs). In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government indicates that, according to the data from the annual survey of the maquiladora sector undertaken by the Central Bank of Honduras, the number of persons working in goods for processing and related activities rose from 130 359 to 134 712 between 2015 and 2018 as a result of trade agreements. The Committee also notes the Government’s indications that the ZEDEs are still not operational. However, the Committee notes the observations of the CGT and the CTH denouncing the failure of the Government’s initiatives to attract foreign and national investment due to the persistence of significant obstacles, such as legal insecurity and citizenship. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing detailed information, including statistical data disaggregated by age and gender, on the impact that trade agreements have had on the generation of productive employment. The Committee also requests the Government to provide updated and detailed information on the measures adopted or envisaged to make the ZEDEs operational.

The Committee notes the observations by the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received on 22 August 2017, as well as the Government’s response to those observations. The Committee recalls that in its direct request of 2012 it noted that the Government did not provide any comments on the COHEP observations of 2008, indicating that it was fully in favour of a revision of the Convention to take account of developments in cargo transportation methods. The Committee also notes the observations of COHEP, in which it states that it has not been informed by the Government that the latter intends to revise the national legislation in respect of the Convention. COHEP adds that neither has the Government indicated that it intends to discuss the matter in the Economic and Social Council (responsible for tripartite discussions on these matters). In its response, the Government indicates that it was awaiting more information on the observations submitted in 2008 by COHEP, given that the representative of that organization put forward arguments that were unrelated to the matter. The Government indicates in its 2017 report that the Convention was publicized during two sessions, on 3 August 2017, which COHEP did not attend, and on 15 August 2017. The Government also proposed holding regular meetings with the aim of reviewing, on a tripartite basis, the requirements of the Convention and both partners agreed to support the initiative. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consultations held with the social partners, including COHEP, in the context of developments in cargo transportation methods.

With reference to its general observation of 2007 on the application of the Convention, the Committee recalls that it invites Governments to provide information on how the Convention is applied in relation to modern methods of cargo handling, particularly with regard to containers. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Directorate General of Merchant Shipping issued Order No. DGMM 008-2016 on 24 June 2016, implementing the amendments to Regulation 2 of Chapter VI of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS Convention), which entered into force on 1 July 2016, and which refers to the verified gross weight of a full container. The Committee notes that this Order constitutes a measure contributing to the application of Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide all information it considers useful on the application of Order No. DGMM 008-2016 of the Directorate General for Merchant Shipping.

The Committee notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received on 31 August 2018 and supported by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), as well as the Government’s response to these observations.

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. 1. Reinforcement of the legal framework to combat the various forced labour practices. The Committee notes the adoption of a new Penal Code, through Decree No. 130-2017 of 31 January 2019, which entered into force on 10 November 2019. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 139, slavery, sexual slavery and forced prostitution are crimes against humanity. Sections 219, 221 and 292 define the elements that constitute the crimes of trafficking in persons, exploitation under conditions of slavery and servitude and the exploitation of work, and establishes the applicable penalties. The Committee notes with interest the adoption of all these provisions, which reinforce the legal framework for action to combat the various practices covered by the definition of forced labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to raise the awareness of the law enforcement authorities concerning these new provisions with a view to facilitating the identification of victims and punishing those responsible for such crimes. The Committee asks, in particular, for information on the repression of the crime of exploitation of work, under the terms of which any person who by means of deceit or abuse of a situation of need prejudices, restricts or fails to recognize the legally established rights of workers shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment.

2. Trafficking in persons. In its previous comments, the Committee welcomed the strengthening of the national legal framework to combat trafficking in persons through the adoption of Decree No. 59-2012 (the Act against trafficking in persons), as well as the institutional framework, particularly with the launching of the Inter-Institutional Commission against Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking in Persons (CICESCT) and the establishment of the immediate response team (ERI), which is responsible for identifying victims and providing them with assistance. Noting that a National Plan of Action against Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking in Persons was under preparation, the Committee requested information on the measures taken in this context with a view to prevention, the protection of victims and the reinforcement of the capacities of the prosecution services.

Institutional framework. In its report, the Government indicates that the Strategic Plan to Combat Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking in Persons in Honduras (2016–22), adopted in December 2016, establishes objectives for coordination, prevention, assistance to victims, prosecutions and the penalization of crimes. It adds that the budget of the CICESCT was increased for 2017 so that the Commission would have adequate personnel and material and logistical resources to fulfil its functions effectively. This increase made it possible for the CICESCT to reinforce its action in the fields of prevention and assistance to victims through the immediate response team. With regard to the implementation of the National Plan of Action, local CICESCT committees ensure the implementation of local plans which take into account regional characteristics. The Government observes that, through the work of the CICESCT, the roles and responsibilities of the various institutions have been determined more precisely, which has made it possible to considerably improve coordination, optimize the use of resources and respond more effectively to the problem of trafficking in persons. The Committee also notes that a final evaluation of the implementation of the National Plan is envisaged, following which the results achieved will be analysed and technical and financial recommendations made with a view to the preparation of the next strategic plan. The Committee notes in this respect that, in their joint observations, the COHEP and the IOE indicate that an evaluation conducted by the CICESCT shows that the implementation of the Act against trafficking in persons was assessed positively and that a series of recommendations and opportunities for improvement have been issued. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to continue to reinforce the role of the CICESCT so that it can ensure that the various components of the Strategic Plan to Combat Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking in Persons in Honduras (2016–22) are implemented. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on this subject. Please also provide information on the final evaluation of the implementation of the Plan, the results achieved, the difficulties encountered and the measures taken or envisaged to overcome them.

Protection of victims. With regard to the protection of victims, the Government indicates that they have received full assistance. The Committee notes the information relating to primary assistance, provided during the 72 hours following the identification of victims and intended to meet their urgent and basic needs; secondary assistance, provided within the framework of a medium- and long-term support process until the situation of the victims and their conditions have improved; and the assistance provided to Honduran nationals abroad. For example, victims can benefit from micro-credits to create small enterprises as a means of obtaining an income. The immediate response team coordinates the provision of this assistance and, in December 2016, a protocol for action by the immediate response team was adopted setting out procedures to be followed to coordinate the action taken for the provision of full protection. The Committee requests the Government to continue taking the necessary measures to enable the immediate response team to provide to victims of trafficking the primary and secondary assistance set out in the Act against trafficking in persons. Please provide detailed information on this subject. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether the victim protection fund envisaged in section 20 of the Act has been established.

Sanctions. The Committee notes the information on complaints, investigations and prosecutions initiated in 2016 on cases of trafficking in persons and sexual exploitation. It notes that during that period, 49 complaints were lodged, 30 persons were brought before the courts and eight were convicted and given sentences of imprisonment of between 11 and 18 years. The Committee notes that in their joint observations the COHEP and the IOE refer, among the obstacles faced by the authorities, to the lack of a budget for preventive action to raise awareness of and the visibility of the crime of trafficking in persons. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the investigations conducted, prosecutions and sanctions imposed in cases of trafficking for sexual and labour exploitation. It once again requests the Government to specify the manner in which, in the context of these procedures, identified victims receive compensation for the damage suffered (section 40 of the Act against trafficking in persons). Further noting that the cases only concern trafficking for sexual exploitation, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to reinforce the capacities of the authorities to identify situations of trafficking in persons for labour exploitation so as to encourage the gathering of evidence and the initiation of judicial procedures.

3. Vulnerability of displaced persons and the risk of forced labour. The Committee notes the 2016 report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons on his mission to Honduras. It notes that the Special Rapporteur analyses the issue of internal displacement induced by violence and the criminality of organized gangs. Faced with violence or threats of violence, families are forced to leave their homes with no hope of returning. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that internal displacement is a precursor to migration, as there is no viable solution for the victims of such displacement that would offer them safety, security and a means of subsistence in Honduras. Many migrants enter an ever deteriorating cycle of migrant exploitation and increased vulnerability as their resources and options dwindle (A/HRC/32/35/Add.4, 5 April 2016, paragraph 79). The Committee notes that, in his report on the human rights situation in Honduras in 2016 and 2017, the Secretary of State for Human Rights, Justice, Governance and Decentralization indicates that Honduras has recognized, through the establishment in 2013 of the Inter-Institutional Commission for the Protection of Persons Displaced by Violence, that internal displacement is a consequence of violence. According to his report, the Department for the Protection of Persons Displaced by Violence was created in 2017 and will function as the operational body of the Inter-Institutional Commission as from 2018. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to protect displaced persons and to raise their awareness of the risk of exploitation and forced labour to which migration may give rise, which is compounded by the situation of vulnerability of the persons concerned.

Article 2(2)(c). 1. Prison labour for private entities. The Committee notes that, under the terms of the prison regulations (the Act respecting the national prison system and its implementing regulations, Decree No. 64-2012 of 3 December 2012 and Executive Decision No. 322-2014 of 12 March 2015), prison work can take on different forms, including work assigned by private law individuals or associations within the prison. In general, work has to be carried out inside the prison and supervised by prison staff, and prisoners who work enjoy the same rights as free workers (sections 170, 171, 177 and 179). The Committee previously requested the Government to indicate whether contracts had been concluded between prisons and private entities so that the latter can carry out commercial activities inside prisons using prison labour.

The Government indicates, with regard to work by prisoners for private entities that, at present, there are only oral agreements between private enterprises and detainees, as the agreements between the National Prison Institute and private enterprises have not yet entered into force. The agreements are currently being reviewed prior to their signature. The work performed by prisoners for private enterprises includes cutting and sanding wood and the manufacture of furniture. With regard to consent to perform the work, the Government indicates that prisoners participate in work at their own initiative or after being identified by officials of the National Prison Institute through interviews and evaluations.

The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to provide copies of any agreements signed by the National Prison Institute and private enterprises with a view to the development of commercial activities in prisons. Please specify the manner in which detainees indicate their interest in working within the framework of this public–private partnership, and how they are informed of the conditions of work and wages proposed, and how their acceptance of these conditions is obtained.

2. Sentences of community service. The Committee notes that section 50 of the Penal Code establishes the penalty of the performance of community service or services for victims, which consists of the requirement to perform community services free-of-charge that are related to the crime committed. Community service or services for victims cannot be imposed without the consent of the convicted person. Such services are facilitated by the public administration, which may conclude agreements for that purpose (section 50 of the Penal Code). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether agreements have been concluded for the implementation of sentences of community service, to specify the entities with which such agreements have been concluded and to provide examples of the types of work or services performed in this context.

The Committee notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received in 2017, and the Government’s reply to these observations.

Article 1 of the Convention. Notification of occupational diseases. The Committee recalls that for many years it has drawn the Government’s attention to the operational difficulties of the system for the notification of occupational diseases. The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government indicates that the regular session of the National Workers’ Health Commission of Honduras (CONASATH) was convened with a view to identifying health and safety needs of the workers in the country, with the participation of representatives from the General Confederation of Work, the Honduran Social Security Institute, the Honduran Council of Private Enterprises, the National Autonomous University of Honduras, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and the Ministry of Health, addressing the issue of the notification of occupational diseases. The Committee notes that, at this meeting, it was agreed to request the technical assistance of the ILO. The Committee also notes that the Government sent a memorandum to the Subsecretary of State for Labour and Social Security in April 2017 on the need to reform the Labour Code in order to include an obligation to notify of occupational diseases. The Committee also notes the observations of the COHEP reporting that no progress has been made with regard to the obligation to notify of occupational diseases. The Committee requests the Government to make every effort to establish without further delay an effective system of notification of occupational diseases, and once again requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments with a view to ensuring for all victims of occupational diseases or their dependants compensation that is in line with and gives full effect to Article 1 of the Convention.

The Committee has been informed that, based on the recommendations of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group (SRM tripartite working group), the Governing Body has decided that member States for which Convention No. 42 is in force should be encouraged to ratify the more recent Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 [Schedule I amended in 1980] (No. 121), or to accept the obligations in Part VI of the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102) (see GB.328/LILS/2/1). Conventions Nos 121 and 102 reflect a more modern approach to occupational accidents and diseases. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to follow up the Governing Body’s decision at its 328th Session (October–November 2016) approving the recommendations of the SRM tripartite working group and to consider ratifying Convention No. 121 or accepting the obligations in Part VI of Convention No. 102, as the most up-to-date instruments in this subject area.

Part II (Medical care). Article 9 in conjunction with Article 1 of the Convention. Dependent spouses and children. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that the national legislation defines the term “child” as a person under 11 years of age and only authorizes the spouses of the principal insured person to benefit from medical maternity benefit and invited the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication in its report that section 60 of Decree No. 56-2015, the Framework Act on the Social Protection System, establishes that the minor children are covered by the Social Protection System until they reach 18 years of age, and without an age limit when there is some kind of particular disability or incapacitating terminal or chronic disease. The Committee requests the Government to indicate, where possible, the number of spouses and dependent children covered.

Part VIII (Maternity benefit). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request in relation to medical benefits for maternity.

Part XI. Standards to be complied with by periodical payments. Articles 65 and 66. Level of periodical payments. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous request regarding whether it wishes to have recourse to Article 65 of the Convention and the number of persons covered, as well as the indication of the level of periodical payments made for the various contingencies accepted for the Convention.

Article 65(10). Review of the current periodical payments. The Committee recalls that Article 65(10) of the Convention provides that the rates of current periodical payments in respect of old age, employment injury, invalidity and death of breadwinner, shall be reviewed following substantial changes in the general level of earnings where these result from substantial changes in the cost of living. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the review of the rates of current periodical payments in respect of old age, invalidity and death of breadwinner, in accordance with Article 65(10) of the Convention.

Part XIII (Common provisions). Suspension of benefit. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in relation to its previous comment on the scope and application in practice of the authorization to suspend benefit in the event of closure of the enterprise for over 30 days, which is not included in the reasons enumerated in Article 69 of the Convention.

Part XIV (Miscellaneous provisions). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comment.

Articles 71(1) and (3) and 72(1), and application of the Convention in practice. Structural reforms of the system. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the progress made as regards the envisaged reform, along with information on the actuarial studies undertaken or planned for this purpose and the consultations held to ensure social and political support for the reforms. The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Decree No. 56-2015, the Framework Act for the Social Protection System, examined in several meetings by the new Economic and Social Council (CES), established through Decree No. 292-2013 and Decree No. 77-2016, which introduces changes to the Private Contributions Scheme and other institutions in accordance with the new provisions. The Committee notes that the Act is based on, inter alia, a basic protection pillar known as the “social protection floor”. The Committee also notes Executive Decision No. STSS-008-2017, agreeing to partially amend the proposal sent to the Executive Branch on employers’ and workers’ contributions to finance the different regimes and pillars of the Social Protection System. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the impact of the new legislation on the application of the Convention, particularly Parts V, IX and X, along with information on Executive Decision No. STSS-008-2017 on employers’ and workers’ contributions, recalling that Article 71(1) of the Convention provides for the collective financing of social security, avoiding financial hardship to persons of small means. Lastly, in accordance with Article 71(3) of the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to continue providing the results of actuarial studies concerning the financial equilibrium of the social security system.

The Committee notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received on 31 August 2018 and supported by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), as well as the Government’s response to these observations.

Impact of compulsory prison labour on the application of Article 1 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide clarifications on whether or not prison labour is compulsory. Indeed, while the voluntary nature of prison labour is set out in the Act on the national prison system and its implementing regulations (sections 75–82 of Decree No. 64-2012 of 3 December 2012 and Chapter XI of Executive Decision No. 322-2014 of 12 March 2015), that is not the case of the Penal Code, which provided in sections 39 and 47 that persons convicted to a sentence of detention or imprisonment are under the obligation to work.

The Committee notes that the Government refers once again in its report to section 75 of the Act on the national prison system, under the terms of which work is an individual right and duty, and that it must not be degrading or compulsory. The Government indicates that work is an obligation when it forms part of the rehabilitation and re-education processes intended as preparation for social integration, the avoidance of idleness and making use of the time spent in prison for training or apprenticeship.

The Committee also notes the indication by the COHEP in its observations that when the Act on the national prison system provides that work is a duty for convicts, they are under the obligation to perform work, even if they do not express the wish to do so, as work is a fundamental component of their treatment and rehabilitation. The COHEP also refers to the adoption of the Act respecting work by detainees and the imprisonment of highly dangerous and aggressive persons, indicating that the Act requires persons who are detained to perform at least five hours of productive work a day.

The Committee notes that the above Act (adopted by means of Decree No. 101-2015 of 7 December 2015) provides that all persons who are detained shall work, taking into account their physical and mental aptitudes (section 6(2)). The work must not be punitive and must be for the purposes of rehabilitation and/or training. In the event of failure to comply with the law, detainees are held liable in terms of their disciplinary and administrative responsibility (section 8). The Act also amends certain of the provisions of the 2012 Act on the national prison system, including section 75(2), which provided that work should not be of a degrading or compulsory nature. Section 75(2) now solely provides that the work must not be degrading. In this regard, the Committee notes that, in its response to the COHEP’s observations, the Government indicates that the 2015 Act is not currently applied as its implementing regulations have not yet been adopted. The Government reiterates that work has to be performed by convicted prisoners with a view to providing training and becoming used to work so that they can be integrated and make use of the knowledge acquired.

The Committee notes all of this information. While observing that work by prisoners forms part of a process of their rehabilitation and integration, the Committee notes that the provisions of the 2015 Act respecting work by detainees places them under the obligation to work. The Committee recalls in this respect that compulsory prison labour may under certain circumstances have an impact on the application of the Convention. If a prisoner is compelled to perform prison work as a result of a conviction for expressing certain political opinions, or opposition to the established political, social or economic system, or for participating in a strike, the imposition of such work is contrary to the Convention.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour imposed as a punishment for expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to certain provisions of the Penal Code which establish sentences of imprisonment for persons found guilty of the offences of slander, libel, defamation and the propagation of false information (sections 155, 157, 160, 161 and 415(1)). It requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which the above provisions of the Penal Code are used in practice by providing copies of any court rulings that illustrate their scope. The Government indicates that in the case of these offences judicial proceedings are initiated on the basis of a complaint by the injured party and that the procedures are commenced in the context of allegations intended to control high-level public officials or acts of corruption.

The Committee notes the adoption of a new Penal Code, by means of Decree No. 130-2017 of 31 January 2019, which entered into force on 10 November 2019. The Committee welcomes the fact that the Penal Code no longer sets out, in the part devoted to crimes against honour (Book II, Title VII, Chapter III), the offence of defamation. Moreover, the penalties envisaged for the offence of libel are limited to fines (section 229). The offences of “defamation” and “the propagation of false information” continue to be punishable by sentences of imprisonment (section 230 read in conjunction with sections 232 and 573(2)).

The Committee also notes that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, in his report published in January 2019, expressed concern at the misuse of the provisions of the Penal Code that are in force in relation to slander, libel and defamation against journalists and human rights defenders and fears that this situation may continue under the new Penal Code. The Special Rapporteur indicates that, in the exercise of their work, human rights defenders and journalists are faced with criminal charges. Criminalization is based on the “intentional misuse of criminal legislation”. The offences of “unlawful occupation of premises” and “coercion”, as defined in the Penal Code, are those most often used against persons organizing or participating in demonstrations (A/HRC/40/60/Add.2, paragraphs 27, 28 and 30).

The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which the above provisions of the Penal Code are applied in practice, with an indication of whether any court rulings have been handed down under those provisions, the penalties imposed and a description of the acts giving rise to such rulings. The Committee hopes that the Government will ensure that no person who expresses political views or opposition to the established political, social or economy system can be punished by a sentence of imprisonment under the terms of which compulsory prison labour could be imposed.

Article 1(d). Penal sanctions imposed for participating in a strike. The Committee previously referred to section 561 of the Labour Code, under the terms of which the courts may hand down penal sanctions for workers on the grounds that they have committed an offence or breach of discipline by participating in a strike declared unlawful, and section 590, under which persons taking part in a collective labour dispute who “promote disorder” or undermine the peaceful nature of the dispute shall be detained and arrested by any authority until the end of the strike, or until they have given assurances to the labour tribunal that they will desist from their actions. In response to allegations of the increased use of judicial action for participation in strikes, the Government indicates that it would investigate cases of participation in strikes which, according to workers’ organizations, are reported to have given rise to judicial procedures. The Committee notes that the Government requested information on these cases from the Supreme Court of Justice, which indicated that no cases relating to participation in a strike have been recorded.

The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the judicial procedures initiated and, where appropriate, the rulings handed down under sections 561 and 590 of the Labour Code, with an indication of the penalties imposed and a description of the facts that gave rise to these rulings.

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Honduras

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C081 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C081 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C087 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Trade union rights and civil liberties

Legislative issues

C098 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C111 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C169 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C169 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (110th Session of the International Labour Conference, May–June 2021)

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C100 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C122 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C027 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C042 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C102 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Honduras

Display the list by:

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C081 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C081 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C087 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Trade union rights and civil liberties

Legislative issues

C098 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C111 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C169 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

C169 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (110th Session of the International Labour Conference, May–June 2021)

MLC, 2006 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2020

C100 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C100 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C122 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Adopted by the CEACR in 2019

C027 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C042 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C102 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

C105 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)