Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2019, Publicación: 109ª reunión CIT (2021)

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 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.