Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Honduras (Ratification: 1958)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) received on 30 August 2022, in which it indicates that it does not have information on the issues raised by the Committee.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour imposed for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that the new Penal Code adopted in 2019 still envisages the offences of defamation (section 230) and the propagation of false news or information (section 573), which are punishable by sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory labour (under the terms of section 75 of the Act of 2012 on the national prison system and sections 5 and 6(2) of the Act of 2015 respecting work by detainees and the imprisonment of highly dangerous and aggressive persons).In response to the Committee’s request for information on the application in practice of the above provisions of the Penal Code, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that there are rulings by the court of cassation respecting prosecutions of journalists and human rights defenders for slander and defamation. The Government adds that there is a Presidential Commission entrusted with addressing matters related to cases involving political prisoners.

The Committee further notes that, in a joint communication of July 2021, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Honduras noted with concern the undue use of the penal system for the harassment of human rights defenders, especially in matters relating to the defence of the territory of indigenous and Afro-Honduran communities.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention affords protection to persons who express political views or express opposition to the established political, social or economic system by providing that they may not be punished in relation to these activities with penalties involving compulsory labour. The Committee observes that the sentences handed down for offences of defamation provided by the Government are not related to activities covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention and requests the Government to continue to ensure that the above provisions of the Penal Code are not used to punish persons who express certain views or peaceful opposition to the established political, social or economic system through the imposition of sentences of imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour. It also requests the Government to continue providing information on any judicial decisions handed down under sections 230 and 573 of the Penal Code and on the acts that gave rise to those sentences.

Article 1(d). Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour imposed for participating in strikes. The Committee previously noted that, under the terms of section 561 of the Labour Code, the courts may hand down penal sanctions for offences and misconduct during an unlawful strike, and it requested the Government to provide information on the application of this provision in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is no information on prosecutions initiated under section 561 of the Labour Code.

The Committee recalls that in its 2021 comments under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), it referred to the broad scope of certain offences envisaged in the Penal Code and their possible impact on the free exercise of trade union activities. It noted the Government’s indication that a process of tripartite consultation had been commenced on the impact of certain provisions of the Penal Code.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any penal sanctions imposed by the common courts for misconduct or offences committed during an unlawful strike, as envisaged in section 561 of the Labour Code. It also requests the Government to provide information on the conclusions of the tripartite consultation process on the scope and impact of certain provisions of the Penal Code.

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

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.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the observations made jointly by the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 28 August 2015.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Impact of compulsory prison labour on the application of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the new legislative framework regulating prisons, and particularly the compulsory nature of work by detainees convicted to a prison sentence, and on any provisions providing for exceptions for political prisoners. In its report, the Government refers to the adoption of the Act on the national prison system (Decree No. 64-2014 of 3 December 2012), sections 75–82 of which regulate work performed by detainees, and to Chapter XI of the implementing regulations of the Act (Executive Agreement No. 322-2014 of 12 March 2015). The Committee observes that the effect of all of these provisions taken together is that persons convicted to a sentence of imprisonment have a “right to work” and that such work must not be of an arduous, degrading or compulsory nature. Detainees who perform work have the same rights as free workers, subject to the limits pertaining to their detention, and the employment relationship may be terminated by the explicit and written decision of the detainee. However, the Committee observes that, under the terms of sections 39 and 47 of the Penal Code, persons convicted to a sentence of detention or of imprisonment are under the obligation to work (public works or work within the prison). Section 44 provides for certain exceptions to the obligation to work, particularly on grounds of the age or health of convicts.

The Committee recalls in this regard that, although compulsory prison labour performed under certain conditions constitutes an exception to forced labour within the meaning of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), compulsory prison labour may nevertheless under certain circumstances have an impact on the application of Convention No. 105. If an individual is compelled to work, and particularly to perform prison labour, as a result of expressing certain political opinions, or opposition to the established political, social or economic system, or for participating in a strike, such work is contrary to the Convention. The Committee observes that, although the voluntary nature of prison work is derived from the Act on the national prison system and its implementing regulations, that is not the case of the Penal Code, which establishes the obligation of convicted persons to work. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government refers to a Bill on work by detainees which appears to reintroduce the compulsory nature of prison labour into the Act on the national prison system of 2012, and its indication that the social partners consider that this Bill is contrary to the principles of the Convention. Noting that the Penal Code, on the one hand, and the Act on the national prison system and its implementing regulations, on the other, contain provisions on the nature of prison labour which could be considered contradictory, the Committee requests the Government to provide clarifications on whether or not prison labour is compulsory. The Committee also hopes that the Government will take into account the matters raised above on the impact that compulsory prison labour may have on the application of the Convention in the context of the discussion of the Bill on work by detainees so as to ensure that compulsory prison labour cannot be imposed in the circumstances covered by the Convention.

In this context, the Committee notes that certain provisions of the Labour Code 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, 345 and 415(1)). It notes in this respect that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression noted with concern that the criminalization of the offences of slander, libel and defamation could be used to muzzle the press and place excessive restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. The Special Rapporteur emphasized that there is a probability that criminal proceedings could be brought against anyone who voices an opinion that may be considered to disparage a public authority, which would undermine the right to freedom of opinion and expression (A/HRC/23/40/Add.1, of 22 March 2013, paragraphs 22–24). The Committee requests 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 which illustrate their scope. It also requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to ensure that no person who expresses political views or opposition to the established political, social or economic 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 requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of 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. The Government indicates that it has consulted the Supreme Court of Honduras on this subject and that the latter indicated that it had not been seized of any cases concerning these provisions. With regard to the social partners, the Government reports the indication by employers that they have no knowledge of court rulings in this field, as confirmed by the COHEP and the IOE in their observations. The Government adds that workers indicate that there have been cases of judicial action for participation in strikes. Noting the Government’s indication that it would investigate cases of participation in strikes which, according to workers’ organizations, have been the subject of judicial proceedings, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of these investigations, with an indication of whether court rulings have been issued and penalties imposed, and on the facts giving rise to these rulings.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Special dispensation granted to prisoners convicted of political crimes in the prison system. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the special prison arrangements for prisoners convicted of political crimes, under which those prisoners are not subjected to the obligation to work in prison (Decree No. 460 of 1977 and section 81 of the Criminal Rehabilitation Act (Decree No. 173–84 of 1984)). The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, as this does not fall within the scope of the Labour Code, no information on special prison arrangements is available in the records of the general labour inspectorate. The Committee recalls that the Government is responsible for ensuring that the necessary information is communicated to the Office, where necessary by consulting the various government, legislative and judicial authorities concerned, so that the Committee is in a position to assess the application of the Convention.

The Committee also notes that, according to the website of the National Congress, a Prison Bill is under consideration and was reviewed in first reading in April 2012. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether this Bill has been enacted and, if so, to provide a copy. More generally, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the new legislative framework governing prisons provides that work is compulsory for detainees convicted to a prison sentence. Please also indicate whether the new legislation continues to provide for special arrangements for persons sentenced for political crimes.

Article 1(d). Penal sanctions imposed for participating in a strike. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the practical application of two provisions of the Labour Code: section 561 of the Labour Code, under which 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 illegal; 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. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the records of the labour inspectorate do not contain any information on the application in practice of these provisions. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to indicate, in future reports, whether the courts have imposed sanctions on workers who have participated in a strike under sections 561 or 590 of the Labour Code. If so, please provide information on the circumstances that led to these decisions and on the sanctions imposed so that the Committee can examine the manner in which the courts interpret the concepts of “breach” and “promoting disorder” referred to in sections 561 and 590 of the Labour Code.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Special dispensation granted to prisoners convicted of political crimes in the prison system. The Committee notes that prisoners convicted for political crimes benefit from special prison arrangements inasmuch as they are not forced to work in prison (Decree No. 460 of 1977 and section 81 of the Criminal Rehabilitation Act (Decree No. 173-84 of 1984)). The Committee would like the Government to point out whether these derogation arrangements are still applied and, if relevant, to give examples of violations considered to come under the category of “political crimes”.

Article 1(d). Penal sanctions imposed for participating in a strike. The Committee notes that, under section 561 of the Labour Code, courts may sentence workers to imprisonment on the grounds that they had committed an offence or breach of discipline by participating in a strike declared illegal. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of this provision of the Labour Code by giving examples of the breaches of discipline with which the strikers were charged, and the sanctions imposed on them.

The Committee also points out that, under section 590 of the Labour Code, persons taking part in a collective labour dispute to “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 pledged to the courts that they will desist from their actions. The Committee would like the Government to provide information on the practical application of this provision, especially on the interpretation given by the law courts to the term “promote disorder”.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report, which includes observations made by the United Confederation of Honduran Workers (CUTH).

The Committee notes that the above observations refer in a general manner to the alleged use of "methods of forced labour as measures of discipline, punishments for persons participating in strikes, discrimination on grounds of race, sex and religion ...". The CUTH neither indicates laws or regulations providing for such use of forced labour, nor specific instances in which forced labour is alleged to have been imposed in practice. In its comments on these allegations in its report, the Government refers to various provisions of the national legislation which have a bearing on the observance of the Convention. In the absence of more detailed and concrete allegations by the CUTH, the Committee notes the Government's reply in its report.