Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2015, Publicación: 105ª reunión CIT (2016)

Convenio sobre la abolición del trabajo forzoso, 1957 (núm. 105) - Honduras (Ratificación : 1958)

Otros comentarios sobre C105

Observación

1999

Solicitud directa

2023
2019
2015
2012
2011

Visualizar en: Francés - EspañolVisualizar todo

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.