Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 2017, Publication : 106ème session CIT (2017)

Convention (n° 29) sur le travail forcé, 1930 - Paraguay (Ratification: 1967)



A Government representative said that the country’s labour administration authority had undergone significant institutional development since 2013, with the creation of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security (Ministry of Labour), a body with specific objectives and tasks in social and labour affairs. The new Ministry had needed to address daily challenges related to the important task of organizing a new department that met the high standards required, embarking on a process of modernization and growth, despite budgetary limitations. It had made significant progress in the implementation of the current legislation. It had also formulated amendments to laws and regulations, in line with the recommendations of the Committee of Experts. Social dialogue had been strengthened on various topics through the Tripartite Advisory Council, in accordance with Act No. 5 115/13 establishing the Ministry of Labour. He highlighted the country’s increased participation in the ILO, including with respect to paying state contributions, the presence of trade union representatives at the Conference, the submission of reports on Conventions and the technical assistance received from the Office. With regard to the report of the Committee of Experts, he emphasized that various issues that the said Committee had discussed this year had been covered by the Government in the reports submitted in previous years, and that those reports showed a firm willingness on the part of the State to move forward in the process of combating and preventing forced labour. Referring to the adoption of the National Strategy for the Prevention of Forced Labour 2016–20, adopted by Decree No. 6285 of 15 November 2016, he said that the Strategy had been the result of numerous tripartite meetings with the social partners and sectoral workshops organized around the country. The reasoning set out in the Decree noted that the Executive Authorities were adopting the Strategy in the awareness that there existed a sector of the population who, for various reasons, found themselves in a particularly vulnerable position and, in line with the observations made by the Committee of Experts concerning the alleged existence of debt bondage in the Paraguayan Chaco region, so that, in coordination with the Ministry of Labour, state policies could be formulated with the main aim of identifying instruments and measures to address the problem. The initial objective in the short term was to draw up a protocol of procedures for the public sector that defined the roles, functions and responsibilities of the public bodies involved in implementing the Strategy. The ultimate aim was to ensure coordination among the key bodies, including the Ministry of Labour, the Public Prosecution Service, the national police, the Office of the Public Defender and the judicial authorities. In that regard, a project was being carried out with ILO technical assistance with the aim of submitting an inter-institutional protocol to the Commission on Fundamental Rights at Work and the Prevention of Forced Labour for consideration by the social partners and the Government. It was to be hoped that the protocol would be approved and implemented later in 2017 or early in 2018. The ILO was also supporting the country by providing a training module for labour inspectors on forced labour, and in the planning of activities for 2017–18 under the National Strategy for the Prevention of Forced Labour.

With regard to the measures taken to strengthen the technical unit of the labour inspectorate for the prevention and eradication of forced labour, new labour inspectors had been recruited through public competitions requiring professional university qualifications and had been trained in monitoring and labour inspection by ILO experts. In recognition of the fact that the number of inspectors was still too low, the aim was to increase their numbers and geographical distribution, within available budgetary resources. Concerning the lack of infrastructure and weak state presence in the Chaco region, he said that the region represented a very special case, as it accounted for over 50 per cent of the national territory, but had a very small population of 350,000 people, of whom 40,000 were indigenous. The Ministry of Labour’s only offices in the region were located in Teniente Irala Fernández. The short-term aim was to empower the Department of Labour so that it could operate in the town of Filadelfia, closer to groups of indigenous peoples. In that regard, the Government was finalizing the details in preparation to sign an agreement with the regional government in Boquerón to facilitate basic installations. Once the Department had been established there, the next step would be to increase its staffing levels and, if possible, recruit more indigenous advisors on a permanent basis. With reference to the need for information on the judicial rulings handed down in cases in which forced labour practices had been detected, he referred to the reports on Convention No. 29 and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), in which information had been provided on judicial rulings and action by the Public Prosecution Services in cases involving human trafficking and forced labour. He also said that the ILO was training judges from the judicial authorities on the Conventions that the country had ratified. It would take time to see the results. The new Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences included provisions governing work by detainees in national prisons and replaced Act No. 21 of 1970 on the prison system, in accordance with the judicial interpretation criteria of lex posterior and lex specialis. In conclusion, he noted that forced labour presented a challenge that his country had taken up responsibly, although under geographical, demographic and budgetary constraints. The future would show sustained and continuous progress towards full compliance with fundamental rights, for which better protection was required for vulnerable population groups, especially indigenous peoples in the Paraguayan Chaco. The ILO was an invaluable ally on that journey, providing the country with significant technical assistance, all of which increased its hope of continuing to make progress in the proper application of Convention No. 29.

The Worker members emphasized that the Committee of Experts had been dealing with the issue of debt bondage imposed on workers from indigenous communities in Paraguay for 20 years. Such practices had also been identified by various official missions of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples and various investigations undertaken by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and several Paraguayan trade unions. The ILO estimated that at least 8,000 workers could be victims of forced labour in the Chaco region of Paraguay, but the number could even be much higher if the serious shortcomings in labour inspection, precarious infrastructure, the size of the region and the indifference of the authorities were taken into account. It could be assumed that the Convention was being violated, with the full knowledge of the authorities, as the use of debt bondage was a habitual practice in livestock farming. Indigenous workers were usually paid far less than the minimum wage and had to take out loans from their employers. Those sums were generally used to build housing, pay school fees or just to buy food or clothing. In reality, however, the majority of their wages went towards paying outstanding debts, leaving them trapped in a situation amounting to forced labour. In the past, large expanses of indigenous lands had been sold to foreign speculators, forcing many indigenous communities to work for large ranches. At present, these ranches were the only source of employment in the Chaco region. Men usually worked in the fields, taking in the harvest or tending livestock. Domestic work was generally performed by indigenous women, or in some cases their children, for ranch owners. Women indigenous domestic workers suffered constant abuse from their employers, and often did not receive wages, working instead only for bed and board. For children, the situation was even worse. In Paraguay, there was the widespread practice of “criadazgo”, whereby children worked as servants in exchange for their basic needs, which enabled them to receive an education. As these children had no control over their conditions of employment, in reality they were subject to forced labour. Around 47,000 minors, mostly girls, were employed in Paraguay in domestic service under the “criadazgo” system. According to official census figures, they represented 2.5 per cent of the country’s child and adolescent population. The Worker members took note of the creation of an office of the Department of Labour in Teniente Irala Fernández, in the central Chaco region. However, the office was situated 72 kilometres from the city of Filadelfia, capital of the Boquerón region. As indigenous workers had no means of transport, it was impossible for them to cover the distance on foot to submit their complaints. The office currently had only one member of staff, who did not have the proper training and lacked the funds to cover her own travel. Moreover, the Government had not provided information to the trade unions on the activities of the office, nor on the number of complaints of forced labour received and dealt with, nor on any other violation of labour rights. That being the case, complaints were not being made and the submission of complaints could be detrimental to workers. Blacklists were common among employers in the Chaco region, and the majority of ranch owners required references before assigning work on their ranches. Indigenous workers claimed that making a work-related complaint could have a negative impact on other members of the ethnic group, ruining job prospects for the whole community.

With regard to inspections, the Government had announced the creation of the Department for Indigenous Labour and a technical unit in the labour inspectorate for the prevention and eradication of forced labour, supposedly composed of six labour inspectors. However, according to Paraguayan trade unions, those bodies had ceased to function almost as soon as they had been established. During the brief period when they had been operational, they had never informed the social partners of the fines levied against employers, the compensation awarded to workers or the number of workers who had taken part in training courses. Under Article 25 of the Convention, the exaction of forced labour had to be punished as a penal offence, and the penalties imposed needed to be really adequate and strictly enforced. The Committee of Experts had repeatedly requested the Government to provide information on the number of cases in which the labour inspection services had identified violations of the Labour Code in relation to the protection of wages and the operation of company stores. To date, that information had not been supplied to the ILO. In April 2015, based on the Committee’s conclusions, a delegation from the Ministry of Labour, headed by the Minister, had visited the Chaco region to examine the working conditions on agricultural ranches. The delegation had visited only a few workplaces and had been accompanied throughout its visit by representatives of the region’s main agro-enterprises. According to information published on the Government’s website, the Ministry of Labour had made an appeal to ranch owners and the representatives of enterprise at a meeting held during the visit, saying: “We are not following up biased complaints that originated in the ILO in Geneva, but we need to show that there is no forced labour and we want you to help us. We have to prove this is the case.” It was understandable why, at the end of the visit, the Minister had made statements, widely publicized in the press, saying that the mission had been unable to verify the existence of forced labour in the Chaco region. The Committee of Experts, in its 2017 report, had noted with deep concern the operational problems faced by bodies set up to enable indigenous workers who were victims of labour exploitation to exercise their rights, as well as the lack of information on the activities of those bodies. It had also indicated that the national legislation still did not contain sufficiently specific provisions adapted to the national circumstances, meaning that the competent authorities were unable to initiate criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of these practices and punish them accordingly. There had in fact been no judicial rulings relating to forced labour for 20 years. The Worker members took note of the adoption in 2016, with ILO technical assistance of the National Strategy for the Prevention of Forced Labour. However, they noted with concern that trade union organizations had not been properly consulted during the formulation of the Strategy, nor had they been informed of the progress made. Furthermore, the Strategy did not contain specific measures for indigenous communities in the Chaco and Eastern regions. A significant omission in the Strategy was the fact that it did not cover the prohibition of forced labour and penalties for those responsible. Similarly, it made no mention of institutional strengthening for the labour inspectorate, nor of the need for coordination between the inspectorate and the Public Prosecution Services. Those elements were fundamental parts of the Convention and had been raised repeatedly by the Committee of Experts. With regard to prison labour, despite repeated requests from the Committee of Experts, the Government had still not amended the Act on the prison system, under which prison labour was also compulsory for persons subject to security measures in prison. Under the current legislation, those in preventive custody were obliged to work in prison, which was a clear violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The Worker members recalled once again that the ILO supervisory bodies had been examining the case for 20 years. They also observed that the ILO had already provided Paraguay with technical assistance, but it was clear that the Government did not have the political will to make the changes required in law and practice to resolve the recurrent violations of the Convention. Thousands of workers, especially indigenous workers, were still victims of abuse and subject to forced labour at the hands of unscrupulous employers, with the Government’s blessing. The technical assistance provided had not been enough to overcome the distrust that existed between the population of the Chaco region and the Government. Finally, in view of the seriousness of the case, the Worker members recommended that the Government should take more aggressive action, in cooperation with the ILO, and including all those involved on the ground.

The Employer members recalled that the present case had already been examined twice by the Conference Committee. Based on the comments of the Committee of Experts, there were three aspects to the case. The first concerned the request made to the Government of Paraguay to take the necessary measures, within the framework of coordinated and systematic action, to respond to the economic exploitation and in particular the debt bondage to which certain indigenous workers were subjected, especially in the Chaco region. On that issue, the comments of the Committee of Experts referred to several measures that demonstrated the Government’s commitment to comply with its request, such as the creation of a Commission on Fundamental Rights at Work and the Prevention of Forced Labour, the establishment of a subcommission in the Chaco region, the establishment of an office of the Department of Labour in that area of the country, and the activities undertaken in collaboration with the ILO. They also referred to a series of activities, including some specific activities with indigenous communities, which were all aimed at developing a National Strategy for the Prevention of Forced Labour. The Employer members observed that it was necessary to know whether those measures had been effective. In that regard, one piece of information that might be encouraging was the Government’s statement that reports of inspections in 2015 in the Chaco region, although showing evidence of breaches of labour law, had not identified any cases of forced labour. As a result, they endorsed the recognition by the Committee of Experts of the participatory process that had led to the adoption of the National Strategy for the Prevention of Forced Labour and expressed the hope that it would be applied effectively in practice. Second, the Committee of Experts had requested the Government to build the capacities of the law enforcement bodies and to improve the legislative framework against forced labour to ensure that victims had effective access to justice. That point dealt with two issues: the first was the need for effective law enforcement, and the second implied legislative reform. With regard to the effective enforcement of penalties, the Committee of Experts had highlighted the fact that the labour inspectorate had been strengthened through the recruitment of 30 labour inspectors, who had received training in the matters at hand. It had also noted that new courts had been established in the Chaco region. The Employer members considered that both types of action demonstrated the political will of the Government to give effect to the original objective, which was to take coordinated and systematic action in response to economic exploitation, and particularly debt bondage, affecting certain indigenous workers, especially in the Chaco region. As such, while acknowledging the concern that information was lacking on the activities of the bodies set up to enable indigenous workers who were victims of labour exploitation to exercise their rights, they disagreed with the conclusion of the Committee of Experts concerning the operational problems faced by those bodies, as that conclusion was based solely on information received from trade union organizations, and should be corroborated by further information supplied by the Government on the operation of those bodies. With regard to the lack of information on the need to improve the legislative framework to combat forced labour, the Employer members questioned the need to amend the Paraguayan legislation. Where appropriate, it might be recommended to begin a tripartite consultation process with a view to making the necessary legal reforms. With regard to the third aspect concerning compulsory labour by persons in preventive detention, they endorsed the observation of the Committee of Experts that the law allowing persons subject to security measures in a prison to be made to work was not in conformity with the Convention. However, they understood, as indicated by the Government, that the law had been repealed by subsequent legislation for reasons of incompatibility, and that no specific repeal was needed. In that regard, they requested the Government to clarify the matter and guarantee that work under such conditions was prohibited in Paraguay.

The Worker member of Paraguay said that, while she acknowledged the efforts made by the Ministry of Labour to promote labour policies, they were still inadequate. It was necessary to strengthen the Ministry and increased personnel and resources were needed to adopt a firmer approach to the promotion of fundamental rights, particularly in the Paraguayan Chaco. The approval of a National Strategy for the Prevention of Forced Labour was a step in the right direction. The trade union confederations had participated in the formulation of the Strategy, as well as in meetings of the Commission on Fundamental Rights at Work and the Prevention of Forced Labour with a view to further developing the Strategy. Within the framework of the Strategy, policies and activities needed to be developed to combat forced labour. She emphasized that indigenous communities were particularly vulnerable and needed special protection from the State, especially because the nature of the Chaco region made it difficult for trade union organizations to gain access to them. She observed that members of indigenous communities submitted their complaints to the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute, without recourse to the offices of the Ministry of Labour. She reiterated the commitment of trade unions to continue working to defend labour and trade union rights, without discrimination. The best tool for dealing with forced labour was social dialogue with the social partners in the framework of the relevant tripartite bodies. Several tripartite meetings had been held on the issue, including with ILO participation, for the purpose of developing guidelines for cases of forced labour.

The Employer member of Paraguay, noting the comments of the Committee of Experts in relation to the case, recalled that the Federation of Production, Industry and Commerce of Paraguay (FEPRINCO) was participating in a tripartite round table discussion attended by the Commission on Fundamental Rights at Work and the Prevention of Forced Labour. He expressed the firm commitment of Paraguayan employers to the Convention and to tripartite dialogue and noted the creation of the Tripartite Advisory Council, established by Decree No. 5159 of 2016. He referred to the commitment of the Paraguayan Industrial Union, the Rural Association of Paraguay and the National Chamber of Commerce and Services of Paraguay (CNCSP) to the national campaign to formalize the economy and recalled that they were the main contributors to the compulsory social security system of the Social Insurance Institute. He reported that 19 FEPRINCO representatives had participated in workshops on the implementation of the National Strategy for the Prevention of Forced Labour. They were aware of the difficulties of access in the Chaco region. Employers’ organizations, along with the Government and indigenous communities, had participated in regional visits with a view to encouraging the adoption of measures to prevent the forced labour by indigenous peoples. Finally, he indicated that it was strange that the present case was being examined by the Committee, as the Government had adopted measures to combat forced labour. He urged the Committee to adopt a decision commensurate with the situation faced by the country in relation to this problem.

The Government member of Panama, speaking on behalf of the group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC), noted the information provided by the Government and the comments of the Committee of Experts, which demonstrated the commitment of the Government and showed that it was working effectively to eliminate forced labour. He emphasized the importance of the adoption of the National Strategy for the Prevention of Forced Labour, which provided a framework for the development of national and local policies and plans, and which was an important step in combating forced labour. He also noted that in recent years the country had worked closely with the ILO. The Ministry of Labour had conducted regular visits and inspections in the Chaco region of Paraguay, and no cases of forced labour had been identified. He reaffirmed the commitment of GRULAC to the eradication of forced labour and expressed appreciation of the role of the labour inspectorate in this regard. He was confident that the Government would continue to move forward in the application of the Convention, and he urged the ILO to continue to collaborate with the country to meet these objectives.

The Worker member of Brazil expressed the solidarity of Brazilian trade unions with Paraguayan workers in their fight against forced labour and recalled that the Committee had already firmly urged the Government of Paraguay to adopt measures against the form of forced labour to which certain indigenous workers were subjected, primarily in the Chaco region. It was to be regretted that the Government continued to turn a blind eye to the exploitation of indigenous peoples, despite having ratified the Convention 59 years ago. The Government continued to commit human rights violations as if workers were objects and not people. Workers’ debts to their employers were still used to disguise forced labour. Workers became the hostages of employers, who provided them with food, clothing, sanitary facilities and accommodation. The workers could not pay off their debts at the end of each month, and they were even in many cases passed on to widows and children, who had to work to clear them. He therefore called on the ILO to take measures to ensure that the Paraguayan Government brought an end to these violations. He also emphasized that, if the Government continued to fail to comply with the Convention, other avenues could be explored, such as denunciation to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States.

The Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expressed the solidarity of Venezuelan trade unions with the Paraguayan federations in their fight to improve the living and working conditions of the working classes in the country. She urged the Government to strengthen tripartite dialogue with a view to bringing an end to the forced labour that afflicted indigenous workers, especially in the Chaco region.

The Government member of Mexico endorsed the statement by GRULAC. He noted that the situation described was isolated and only occurred in the Chaco region. He expressed satisfaction at the measures taken by the Government with a view to punishing those offences. He encouraged the Government to continue those measures and to pursue coordinated action with the ILO to ensure the application of the Convention.

The Worker member of Argentina noted that the explanations provided by the Government and the measures that it had taken were insufficient. The plans and strategies developed by the Commission on Fundamental Rights at Work and the Prevention of Forced Labour and the structures created lacked the necessary means to eradicate this form of “modern slavery”. The distance of the labour administration offices from the areas in which the reported abuses occurred also made it difficult for victims to have access to them, which was the reason for the limited number of complaints. He expressed support for the recommendations of the Committee of Experts regarding the need to repeal the Act on the prison system (Act No. 210 of 1970) and to ensure that prisoners in preventive detention were not obliged to work in prison. He regretted that “modern slavery” was not an isolated occurrence, but was increasingly linked to mafias and organized crime. The fact that forced labour and all forms of economic exploitation constituted human rights violations and undermined human dignity was recognized at the international level. He emphasized that Paraguay had not ratified the 2014 Protocol on Forced Labour and had not established stringent penalties for the perpetrators of such crimes, and did not punish them in any manner. The ILO should therefore plan an extended mission to remedy the situation.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) expressed regret that the Committee once again had to examine the application of the Convention by Paraguay, and that the decisions taken in 2013 had not been sufficient to prevent thousands of workers from falling victim to forced labour. According to the calculations of the country’s trade unions and the ITUC, between 30,000 and 35,000 persons living in the three departments of the Chaco region, and also in other Eastern regions of Paraguay, which were largely indigenous, were victims of abusive practices of forced or compulsory labour, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Convention. Such human degradation and disgrace arose because of the inaction of the public authorities in Paraguay to combat effectively the use of forced labour for the benefit of private individuals. He recalled the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, of 13 August 2015, on the situation of indigenous peoples in Paraguay. The report confirmed that, although Paraguay had a constitutional framework in which the rights of indigenous peoples were recognized, this normative framework had not been translated into the legislative, administrative or other measures needed to ensure that indigenous peoples enjoyed human rights, including labour rights and the right not to be forced to work. As reflected in the report of the Committee of Experts on the case, and despite the indications of the Government representative to the Committee, the views of the ITUC and Paraguayan trade unions regarding the violations in question were accurate. Finally, he recalled the request by the Committee of Experts for criminal penalties to be imposed and strictly enforced on persons found guilty of the exaction of forced labour. He therefore called on the Government to provide information on prosecutions against persons who exacted forced labour, but noted the absence of judicial decisions issued in this regard.

The Worker member of Uruguay expressed support for the statement of the Worker members and of previous speakers who had said that the Government was far from complying with the Convention. He said that the Labour and Social Declaration of MERCOSUR, of which Paraguay was a member, should be taken into account when examining the case. The country’s economic model, based on agribusiness, encouraged these violations. He was of the view that the situation in the country had worsened since it had last been examined in 2013. Finally, he denounced the absence of social dialogue in Paraguay.

The Government representative said that the Government was committed to working with the social partners to move forward in the fight against forced labour. He took note of the statements made during the discussion, but rejected some comments as being out of context or outside the agenda. Through the implementation of the National Strategy for the Prevention of Forced Labour, better protection would be achieved for all workers throughout the country. It was also important to strengthen labour inspection and education to prevent crimes such as human trafficking. The Government intended to engage in social dialogue to seek solutions, for example within the framework of the Committee on Fundamental Rights at Work and the Prevention of Forced Labour, and various other dialogue forums on minimum wages, education and health. It had established the necessary consultations to make progress on these issues. Some trade union federations were not participating in social dialogue, and he invited them to do so. With regard to the issue of forced labour in the Chaco region, he reiterated that the territory in question was very vast, with an indigenous population of 40,000 persons. He recalled that the area lay not only in Paraguay, but also covered parts of Argentina, Brazil and the Plurinational State of Bolivia, which was why problems in the region were addressed in cooperation with these countries. He added that the Government was addressing the issue of indigenous peoples in an integrated manner, with the involvement of various institutions under the coordination of the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute. With regard to “criadazgo”, the Government had prepared and submitted a Bill in 2016 criminalizing both that practice and the worst forms of child labour. The Bill was currently before Parliament for consideration. The national legislation included definitions of, and penalties for, forced labour, debt bondage and servile marriage, including Act No. 4788/12 on trafficking in persons. The Public Prosecution Services had prosecuted those responsible for these practices, resulting in convictions. In conclusion, he said that the Government would follow up the comments of the supervisory bodies and avail itself of the ILO’s continued support.

The Employer members noted with interest the information supplied by the Government regarding the institutionalization of its action to respond in a coordinated and systematic manner to the situation of forced labour, particularly with respect to debt bondage in the Chaco region. However, they remained doubtful of the effectiveness of the measures taken and hoped that they would achieve results in practice. They considered it necessary for the Government, in its next report to the Committee of Experts, which was due in 2017, to provide information on: (1) the operation of the Commission on Fundamental Rights at Work and the Prevention of Forced Labour and the regional subcommission in Chaco; (2) the specific actions taken with indigenous communities to prevent situations of forced labour, in accordance with the National Strategy for the Prevention of Forced Labour; (3) training for labour inspectors; and (4) the entry into force of the Act on the prison system (Act No. 210 of 1970).

The Worker members regretted that, despite 20 years of recommendations by the ILO supervisory bodies and the assistance provided, Paraguay was still failing to comply fully with the provisions of the Convention. The violations ranged from the incapacity of the authorities to receive complaints concerning serious shortcomings in labour inspection, to the lack of criminal penalties and gaps in legislation. Together, these elements had given rise to a culture in which the exploitation of indigenous workers, men, women and children, was commonplace. No information had been received on the Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding, signed in 2014. They noted the technical assistance provided by the ILO and the National Strategy for the Prevention of Forced Labour. However, given the scale of the challenges and the Government’s continued inaction, they called for an ILO direct contacts mission to visit the country. They further urged the Government to: (1) allocate sufficient human and material resources to the offices of the Ministry of Labour in the Chaco region, so that they could receive complaints from workers and reports of forced labour, taking the appropriate steps to ensure that victims were able to have recourse to the competent judicial authorities in practice and were protected; (2) provide the Committee of Experts with information on the judicial proceedings instigated against persons exacting forced labour in the form of debt bondage, and ensure that national criminal law contained sufficiently specific provisions adapted to the national circumstances to enable the competent authorities to initiate criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of these practices and punish them; (3) as a priority, build the capacities of the labour inspectorate so that it could deal effectively with complaints, identify victims and restore their rights so as to prevent them becoming trapped in forced labour situations once again; (4) bring together the social partners, including the most representative organizations, to participate in the development of the National Strategy for the Prevention of Forced Labour, guaranteeing, in accordance with the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), that indigenous peoples were consulted on any legislative or administrative measures which might affect them, as social dialogue needed to be effective, and not merely a matter of form; and (5) with regard to the need to amend Act No. 210 of 1970 on the prison system to bring it into conformity with the Convention, take the necessary measures to ensure that the national legislation was in conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statement made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted the absence of judicial decisions concerning forced labour in the form of debt bondage or otherwise.

Taking into account the discussion of the case, the Committee urged the Government to:

- allocate sufficient material and human resources to the Ministry of Labour offices in the Chaco region for receiving workers’ complaints and reports of forced labour, taking appropriate measures to ensure that in practice victims are in a position to turn to the competent judicial authorities;

- ensure that judicial proceedings are launched against persons exacting forced labour in the form of debt bondage;

- continue strengthening the capacity of labour inspectors, so as to enable them to deal effectively with the complaints received, to identify victims and restore their rights in order to prevent them from being trapped again in situations of forced labour;

- continue including social partners in the process of adoption of the National Strategy for the Prevention of Forced Labour;

- develop regional actions plans and priority actions to raise awareness on forced labour, to respond to the situation of vulnerability faced by indigenous workers, and to protect the victims identified;

- ensure that the national criminal law contains sufficiently specific provisions to enable the competent authorities to initiate criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of these practices.