Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2006, Publication: 95th ILC session (2006)

A Government representative stated that in the Government's report to the Committee of Experts on the application of the Convention, which had been sent in April, it had not been possible to reply in full to all the comments made by the Committee of Experts, since the Government had not received the necessary information from all relevant bodies. With regard to the observation of the Committee of Experts, he explained that the Act concerned had never entered into force, as it had been vetoed by the Executive precisely because it was considered to contain serious deficiencies and that several points had to be improved. He affirmed that the indigenous issue was very critical, significant and sensitive for Paraguayans and the Government, and emphasized that, although it was sometimes mistakenly believed that there were two populations in his country, the whites and the indigenous, virtually the whole population was of mixed race and spoke both Spanish and Guaraní. While the purely indigenous population was not very large (only 100,000 out of six million), caring for and protecting this portion of the population was an important concern for the Government. His Government was therefore ready to listen to and accept the Committee's recommendations so that the situation of the indigenous population could be dealt with better. Finally, he read out a message in Guaraní for the workers and employers of his country, in which he called on them to inform the Government of any problems of application, but to also work together with the Government to resolve them.

Another Government representative indicated that in addition to her oral presentation, a more detailed written report would be submitted. As to the 2003 Conference Committee discussion, she stated that the Government was taking the matter much more seriously. She reported that, with ILO technical cooperation and cooperation from the Declaration, a field study was being produced in compliance with Convention No. 29 that addressed the situation of indigenous workers in the western region of the country, the Chaco Paraguayo. This study would be published in her country in September 2006 which reflected the fact that the situation of indigenous peoples had much to do with cultural issues. The document would be analysed at tripartite seminars held in the capital, Asunción, with the participation of employers, workers, indigenous community leaders and government civil servants. She added that the Ministry of Justice and Labour had dispatched labour inspectors to the region to review the situation, and in March 2006, in the presence of ILO officials, a regional labour office had been opened in Mariscal Estigarribia, at the centre of Chaco Paraguayo, to deal with cases reported. Those in charge of this office also took part in radio programmes broadcast across the region, relaying features on workers' rights and the Labour Code.

Concerning Act No. 2822, which was intended to replace the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI), the draft law had been partially vetoed by the President. It had therefore been shelved and the INDI structure and functions remained in force in conformity with the provisions of Act No. 904/81. INDI was the body responsible for coordinating indigenous policies in Paraguay, and was responsible for developing and promoting, together with indigenous peoples and public and private organizations that worked with them, new policies based on the indigenous vision of meeting the challenges of poverty and providing a structural solution to the problems faced by indigenous peoples. INDI was also responsible for developing projects that were related to indigenous issues. With respect to the request for information on Articles 2 and 33 (coordinated and systematic policy), 6 (consultation), 7 (participation) and 15 (consultation and natural resources), she indicated that responses to these questions would be found in the written report which would be submitted to the Committee. The Government intended to tackle this issue and requested the assistance of the social partners to move forward the work required, to respond effectively to the situation of indigenous peoples and to find the answers that the case deserved.

The Worker members, while appreciating the explanations provided by the Government, recalled that the Conference Committee had already discussed at length, in 2003, the case of Paraguay related to the Convention and that the case had been taken up again in a footnote by the Committee of Experts, requesting the Government to provide detailed information to the Conference. The Workers regretted that the Government had made no significant progress despite the ILO technical cooperation that had been provided in March 2005, although the Government itself had requested technical cooperation in 2003. The detailed report on the application of the Convention, requested in 2004 and 2005, had not been received. A report could have listed the measures taken to give effect to the recommendations made in 2003. A letter had been sent by the Office to the Government on 8 June 2005, but remained unanswered. The Government, however, had stated on several occasions that it placed great importance on the ILO and its standards-related and technical cooperation activities. The Government representative had admitted the positive and constructive effects of the Committee of Experts' comments on national legislation. Recognizing the delay in the information provided by her country, the Government representative had reiterated the authorities' willingness to meet their obligations, mainly regarding the application of international labour standards. But the Committee of Experts had noted in its report of 2005 that communication between the Office and the Government was limited. In 1997, it noted in its observations on the application of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) that there was proof of debt bondage among indigenous communities in the Chaco region. The Government had declared that investigations would be carried out. In its 2003 report on the application of Convention No. 169, the Committee of Experts noted that the Government had supplied no information on the subject and, at the Conference, the Government representative had explained that it was impossible to carry out such investigations because of the geographical size of the country. The Worker members were therefore obliged to refer to more concrete and current information provided by the ILO report of June 2005 concerning the special action programme on forced labour, entitled "Debt bondage and marginalization in the Chaco Paraguayo region". The indigenous population of around 100,000 people represented 1.7 per cent of the total population of Paraguay and was especially vulnerable. In urban areas, it lived in worker communities. The indigenous peoples were deprived of their land and 51 per cent were illiterate. They constituted a source of cheap labour often subjected to debt bondage. The modernization of the Paraguayan economy had led to a reduction in demand for indigenous labour, but had not brought an end to abuses. Unemployment was endemic. The rate of indigenous workers in the construction sector, which used to be 100 per cent of the workforce had now come down to 30 per cent. The best-paid jobs were given to non-indigenous workers. Indigenous workers were thus forced to accept jobs remunerated at sub-minimum wage rates. The most serious problem was the expulsion of indigenous peoples from their lands in the Chaco, mainly following land seizures by landowners who came to grow soya beans. The indigenous peoples migrated to the capital where they lived in absolute misery.

The Committee of Experts had noted in its report that Act No. 2822 on the status of indigenous peoples and communities had been voted by the National Congress on 3 November 2005. But the Government representative had announced that this act had not been approved because of serious shortcomings. The Worker members requested the Government to clarify the current legal situation and to indicate which law was actually in force and, if a new draft law was in preparation which took into account the consultation of indigenous peoples, as foreseen in Articles 2, 6 and 33 of the Convention. In substance, the Worker members urged the Government to meet its obligations with respect to the ILO supervisory bodies and forward detailed and complete reports without delay containing all information that was useful to the Committee of Experts so that it could examine and evaluate the action taken by the Government to apply Convention No. 169. They especially requested detailed information on the current legal situation applicable to indigenous peoples and measures taken by the Government to ensure that consultations took place with indigenous communities as foreseen by Article 6 of the Convention. They requested that solutions be found to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and that the ILO should propose technical assistance to Paraguay, especially through the ILO project for promotion of policy on indigenous and tribal people (PRO-169) and activities related to supervision of ILO standards with the participation of the social partners.

The Employer members stated that the fact that the Government had appeared before the Committee and provided some written and oral information constituted some progress in this case. They also stated that the Government could have avoided the discussion of the case by providing timely reports to the Committee of Experts. While the Employer members believed that this was essentially a serious case of non-reporting, they also concurred with the Worker members that there was not full implementation of the Convention relating to indigenous and tribal peoples. In particular, the Government had indicated that the revised law had not taken effect. The situation in the country for indigenous and tribal peoples remained serious, as they continued to be among the most disadvantaged in society.

The Worker member of Paraguay requested the Government to provide more detailed reports on the application of the Convention. He regretted that the report presented by the Government contained additional information to which the workers had no access. As regarded the draft law which the President of the Republic had vetoed, he stated that the workers had not taken part in any consultations during its drafting and expressed the hope that such a situation would not be repeated in future. He asked the Government to provide copies of the studies carried out to enable workers to participate, in consultation with the indigenous peoples, in the resolution of this old problem so that the Convention could be fully applied. He also asked the ILO to continue its technical cooperation with the Government on these issues.

An observer representing the Latin American Workers Central (CLAT) stated that Convention No. 169 was systematically and permanently violated. The Chaco was home to 15 of the 20 ethnic groups identified in the 2002 indigenous census. Data from the census showed that the working conditions of seven of these groups were dramatic. These indigenous communities were discriminated against and suffered from debt servitude in urban and rural areas. In fact, the discrimination against indigenous workers experienced in previous years continued to be a reality. There was discrimination in wages that were much lower than for non-indigenous workers, and even in the fact that indigenous peoples were not allowed to use water wells. Temporary workers saw their wages systematically reduced while there was overpricing in foods that they were obliged to purchase at the only community store available, where prices were fixed by the store owner who was also the employer. Many were forced into debt. The employer used this method as a means of forced labour, or debt bondage, to which not only the worker but his whole family was subjected. Workers and their families enjoyed no social protection or education or health coverage. As the Guaranís themselves said in their own language: El Tembi ûre ñamba'apo ñande tembiguaivêva ("We work for food alone and are the most deprived".) The speaker asserted that although Paraguay had ratified the ILO Conventions on forced labour and on indigenous peoples, these Conventions were systematically violated with the full knowledge of the authorities. The National Constitution, however, clearly stated in article 10 that slavery, debt bondage and trafficking of people were proscribed. The violations of the law also extended to the standards that provided legal guarantees for land ownership by indigenous peoples. In fact, article 64 of Chapter 5 of the National Constitution provided for communal land ownership by indigenous peoples. However, indigenous peoples were expelled and forced to abandon their natural habitat by landowners and investors who were involved in soya bean agriculture, using toxic fertilizers indiscriminately that were dangerous to both human beings and the soil, resulting in unsuspected damage to the Guaraní heritage.

The Employer member of Paraguay stated that the question of indigenous peoples was being examined by the employers in Paraguay. He admitted that there were situations in which the indigenous population was submitted to debt bondage. He nevertheless stated that these were isolated cases for which lack of communication was responsible and which took place in remote locations unreachable by the labour inspection. The facts referred to by other speakers did not represent the Paraguayan employers' vision. Employers' organizations were in fact working together and were determined to improve the situation of indigenous peoples in Paraguay.

The Government representative was grateful for the comments made and apologized for the late dispatch of the report on the application of Convention No. 169. She repeated that there was currently no draft law under discussion and that Act No. 904/81 was still in force. She stated that in 2006 all information in response to the Committee of Experts' concerns would be forwarded and would be duly communicated to the social partners. She reiterated the Government's intention to address the issue in a tripartite framework. Thus a seminar would take place in September 2006 in order to disseminate the document entitled "Debt bondage and marginalization of rural establishments in Paraguay". The Government also intended to set up a tripartite committee on indigenous peoples' issues.

The Worker members stated that, while they appreciated the additional information provided by the Government, they nevertheless remained concerned over several issues. They requested the Government to respect its obligations towards the ILO supervisory bodies and to provide detailed reports containing all necessary information to the Committee of Experts without delay, so that it could examine and evaluate the measures taken. In particular, they requested the Government to provide detailed information on the current legal situation, including on the Law on Indigenous Peoples of 1981, which, according to the Government, was still in force.

The Employer members stated that the Government had given some information indicating that this case was moving forward. However, they urged the Government to ensure that law and practice was in conformity with the Convention and to provide all information requested by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee noted the statement of the Government representative and the ensuing discussion. It recalled the previous examination by the Committee in 2003, and the concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts that no report had been received to follow up on the effect given to the recommendations made on that occasion, and that there had again been a failure to provide a detailed report in 2004 and 2005. The Committee noted that the Committee of Experts had also raised the lack of a reply by the Government to allegations concerning the application of the Convention by the National Federation of Workers (CNT).

The Committee noted the oral and written information provided by the Government representative, in particular regarding the recent opening of the Regional Labour Office in Paraguayan Chaco, the Presidential Veto of Act No. 2822, and the assigning to the National Institute of Rural Development (INDERT) the responsibility for reducing demands on indigenous lands in order to prevent intrusion on those lands. The Committee also noted the Government's commitment to establish a tripartite committee to follow-up on ILO matters. The Committee further noted that the ILO in the context of the follow-up to the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work would publish a detailed report in September 2006, covering the situation of indigenous peoples in Paraguay, which would be discussed in a tripartite meeting.

While noting the Government's indication that it had provided a report to the Committee of Experts in March 2006, the Committee requested the Government to provide full information concerning the matters raised by the Committee of Experts in its next report, including regarding the observations made by a workers' organization. The Committee stressed the importance of providing information on the practical application of the Convention, in particular regarding the various aspects relating to recruitment and conditions of employment as required pursuant to Article 20 of the Convention, and the number of indigenous rural workers in the country, specifying the number of such workers declared to the administrative authorities. The Committee recalled the obligation of the Government to consult and ensure participation of the indigenous peoples with respect to measures that might affect them. The Committee reminded the Government that non-compliance with the obligations arising from article 22 of the Constitution hampered the effectiveness of the ILO supervisory machinery. The Committee, therefore, urged the Government to adopt measures to enable it to send on a regular basis the information requested by the Committee of Experts, and in particular to respond to the outstanding issues raised since 2002. The Committee also suggested that the Government should consider requesting further ILO technical assistance regarding the application of the Convention.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2003, Publication: 91st ILC session (2003)

The Government representative (Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Security) stated that in his country there are 483 indigenous communities, of which 330 were registered; 68 per cent of them owned their land. In order to distribute more land to those communities, the Government could either buy this land directly or expropriate it on the basis of an evaluation. The redistribution of the lands to the communities had run into difficulties because of the lengthy process of evicting the farmers and of the opposition of the individual landowners to the expropriation procedures. The speaker indicated that 200.000 hectares of land still needed to be bought and distributed in the western region of the country and 40.000 hectares in its eastern region.

Referring to the complaint submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concerning the situation of the indigenous communities in Chaco Paraguayo, he indicated that the Government was seeking an amicable solution by means of dialogue, which, regretfully, had not yet taken place. Together with the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI), the Government had elaborated a plan of action to analyse the situation and to take measures to find solutions to problems affecting indigenous communities. Also, a strategic plan had been elaborated in September 2002 with the representatives of the indigenous communities and would be presented to the Government when it would assume power on 15 August 2003. Referring to the complaint of the World Confederation of Labour of October 1997 concerning the labour conditions of members of indigenous communities in Chaco Paraguayo, the speaker stated that it was not possible to undertake labour inspections because of distance. It would take two to three days for the inspectors to reach the ranches mentioned in the complaint and the inspections could be further obstructed by the fact that members of the indigenous communities worked only sporadically and did not reside in this area.

The draft law mentioned in the observation of the Committee of Experts was before the Senate but had not yet been considered. The Government representative recognized the failure of the Executive Power to have consultations with the indigenous communities, but pointed out that a second draft law has been presented to the Chamber of Deputies, which had indeed been elaborated in consultation with the representatives of the indigenous communities and, with the change of Government in August 2003, the first draft was surely to be withdrawn.

The Worker members indicated that, in Latin America alone, the indigenous population was currently estimated at 30 to 40 million persons. Convention No. 169, which contained detailed and complete standards, represented a significant advance for the rights of indigenous peoples. The Office should encourage those Members that considered themselves in a position to apply its provisions to ratify the Convention. The Convention only guaranteed a minimum set of rights and obligations and ratifying States should seek to provide increased protection. The objective of this Convention was to recognize the collective cultural and social identity of these peoples and to guarantee their participation in the elaboration of public policy on matters of concern to them. Self-determination constituted in this respect a precondition for the complete and full exercise of the right of indigenous peoples to preserve and pass on their cultural identity. The main point, therefore, was that the legal system that governed and regulated, for example, indigenous territories, the employment conditions, vocational training and training in crafts, was in conformity with the first twelve Articles of the Convention.

The Government of Paraguay had limited itself to providing generic and insufficient replies to the supervisory bodies of the ILO. It had neither supplied a detailed first report nor the information requested by the Committee of Experts. Despite the absence of information from the Government, they could still observe several problems in the application of the Convention. The Committee of Experts had noted that in the region of Chaco where the indigenous population represented 60 per cent of the population, land that officially belonged to the indigenous peoples constituted 1.8 per cent. This land situation was fundamentally unjust. In this respect, the NGO Tierraviva, referred to in the communication from the National Federation of Workers (CNT) to the Committee of Experts, was examining three complaints that had been lodged with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. These complaints concerned the indigenous communities of Xakmok Kásek, Sawohyamaxa, and Yakye Axaseules. In all three cases the communities had been unsuccessfully presenting their claims, for several years now, about a part of the land of their ancestors to the competent national authorities or the courts. It was important to point out that CNT had informed the Committee of Experts of violations of Convention No. 29 in the Chaco region. It had been suggested to the Government to carry out inspection visits at properties in the region. However, it appeared from the statement of the Government representative that these inspection visits had not taken place.

In respect of Articles 2, 6 and 33 of the Convention dealing with the participation by and consultations with the indigenous peoples on matters that could concern them, it appeared from the statement of the Government representative that the consultations with the indigenous peoples on the draft law aimed at replacing the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) and which had already been submitted to the Assembly by the Executive, had not yet taken place. According to CNT, the body that was intended to replace INDI would have less powers and functions than INDI. By weakening this body, the possibilities for the Government to develop a coordinated and systematic action in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention were significantly reduced. This could worsen the situation of indigenous peoples in Paraguay even more.

In respect of the application of Article 3 of the Convention dealing with the relative enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms without hindrance or discrimination as well as without discrimination of female members of these peoples, information provided by the Government representative on the complaints alleging discrimination and their resolution could not permit to clarify the situation.

Article 32 of the Convention dealt with contacts and cooperation between indigenous and tribal peoples across borders. It would be desirable for the Committee of Experts and for the Office to encourage the establishment of international cooperation between Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil in a way that would permit the communities in one or the other countries to be in contact and thus to be in a better situation to preserve their collective identity.

In conclusion, there was a need to insist that Paraguay did not respect its elementary obligations of supplying a detailed first report and of replying to the comments of the Committee of Experts. If this country was facing problems in this regard, it could request the technical assistance of the Office as well as other multilateral bodies that could certainly provide it with technical and financial support. A mission should be sent to Paraguay in order to enable the Office to provide technical assistance based on an evaluation made on site.

The Employer members noted that this case was new in this Committee despite related observations made by the Committee of Experts in the past. They noted that in this case it was obvious that there were problems of communication as the requested information had not been submitted and concrete questions asked were not answered. This would point to an apparent negative attitude towards obligations resulting from this Convention on the part of the Government of Paraguay. They agreed with the statement made by the Worker members and added that with reference to paragraph 3 of the observation made by the Committee of Experts, the repeal of the Indigenous Communities Charter, adopted by Law No. 904/81, and consequently the abolishing of the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) constituted serious setbacks as well as a violation of article 6 of the Convention, the meaning and purpose of which had been appropriately highlighted in the observation of the Committee of Experts. They regretted that the statement of the representative of the Government of Paraguay did not indicate the future steps it intended to take to overcome this non-compliance and stated that the Government should be requested to do so. With reference to the observation of the Committee of Experts contained in paragraph 5 concerning the communication sent by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) in October 1997 under Convention No. 29, indicating that the working conditions of indigenous persons in ranches suggested an extensive practice of forced labour, they noted the comments of the representative of the Government of Paraguay concerning the legal and administrative measures taken in 2000 in this regard, and in particular those concerning inspections. However, the statement of the Government representative seemed to suggest that inspections were not effectively being conducted. Therefore, it would seem necessary for the national authorities to take new measures to solve the problem without delay. Despite the long speech by the representative of the Government of Paraguay, it did not contain precise elements in reply to the observation of the Committee of Experts. They asked the Government of Paraguay to indicate what measures it intended to take with a view to complying fully with the provisions of Convention No. 169. They had the impression from the statement of the representative of the Government of Paraguay that it wanted to present itself as being powerless against external factors. They wished to remind the Government of its responsibility to take appropriate legal and administrative action. They considered that full and substantial information was needed as regards action already taken or intended to be taken by the Government of Paraguay.

The Worker member of Paraguay indicated that in Paraguay - a bilingual country where the population spoke Guaraní and Spanish and where approximately 90,000 pure indigenous peoples were living - there were grave violations against the indigenous ones on a daily basis. They had been removed from their natural environment and they were condemned to live almost destitute. There also existed a subtle practice of extermination. He added that for these reasons Paraguayan workers joined the criticisms that had been made in this regard and demanded that the ILO Conventions on the matter be respected and that the necessary mechanisms be found to respect in full the human rights of all citizens, without any exclusion and discrimination. The Worker member stated that the indigenous communities were persecuted within and expelled from their environment by landowners and business people belonging to the Moon sect. In November 2002, an indigenous man, Bernardo Rojas, accompanied by his son Ruben Rojas, disappeared. He further stated that the enterprise Carlos Casado had recently sold 700,000 hectares of land to the Moon sect in the town of Puerto Casado, including the settlers of this town who lived in this area for many years. The companies of this sect did not accept any trade unions and therefore violated ILO Conventions Nos. 29, 87, 98, 111, 169 and 182.

The speaker added that in 1998, Pope John-Paul II had visited the town of Mariscal Estigarribia in Chaco where he had spoken with the indigenous communities. The Pope had called upon the authorities to respect the culture, the beliefs and the identity of the indigenous communities and to end the violations and discrimination they suffered. The Worker member mentioned that it was inconceivable that in a country of 406,572 kms the environment of indigenous communities could not be respected and that together with the peasants they had to continue fighting for the their land that was guaranteed to them by the national Constitution and the ILO Conventions. He added that the members of the indigenous communities where wandering around in the capital Asuncion, where they were starving, taking drugs and prostituting themselves, and abandoned by the authorities - children, young people and adults alike. He expressed his solidarity with all the aboriginal peoples in the Americas and especially those from Latin America and the Caribbean who were fighting to preserve their identity, their ethnicity and their human condition subject to rights and obligations. He trusted that as a result of the examination of this case before the Committee, the necessary measures would be taken.

The Worker member of Venezuela expressed her preoccupations with the violations of the human rights of the indigenous communities in Paraguay. The reports of the Committee of Experts and of this Committee had established failure of the Government to comply with its obligation to consult indigenous communities.

She expressed concern with the lack of information concerning the complaint of the WCL in relation to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), which pointed to ill-treatment of indigenous workers in certain ranches and to irregularities in the payment of their wages, as well as with the possible elimination of INDI. The speaker hoped that the Government of Paraguay would assume its responsibilities in relation to the protection of the rights of the indigenous persons. These peoples were not only the historical heritage of Latin America, but part of the reality of the world of work, which should be respected. She expressed interest in the technical assistance of the Office in relation to the operation of the tripartite commission under the new Government.

The Worker member of Uruguay expressed his preoccupation with the non-observance by the Government of Paraguay of the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention, which had been recognized by the Government representative, as well as with the existence of the project to dissolve the INDI. Referring to the allegations of the WCL of October 1997, he expressed his concern that, as stated by the Government representative, no inspections in fact had been carried out in the ranches concerned because of the difficulty of access, and expressed his doubts as to the Government's actions to improve fundamental aspects of the life of the indigenous communities.

The Government representative stated that the main problem in this case consisted of the lack of information. Following the strategic plan of the Government elaborated in September 2002 by the Ministry of Education and Culture and the INDI, the strong and weak points of the institutions would be analysed and coordination would be ensured of actions in favour of indigenous communities. Thematic planning by subject area was realized and a study group in land and natural resources dealt with these questions in all social sectors including the indigenous communities. There was also a Plan of Action of May 2003 for the term of seven years, the financing and the final evaluation of which had been provided for. The speaker indicated that the company Puerto Casado mentioned in the discussion was now named Victoria SA and he himself had visited it following the complaints concerning obstruction to the creation of trade union organizations, which had led to a judicial investigation and the Government's proposal to find a negotiated solution. The inter-institutional commission had been set up by the Defensoria del Pueblo with a view to study this case by the Worker member of Paraguay.

The Government representative stated that the Government would accept the technical assistance of the Office. There should be a coordinated effort of various institutions and NGOs. Budgetary means, however, were insufficient due to the economic recession suffered by his country. The speaker promised to present in writing the actions taken by the Government on the issues in question.

The Employer members referred to the final statement of the representative of the Government of Paraguay and regretted again that information necessary for the appropriate examination of this case and for reaching conclusions in this Committee had not been submitted.

The Worker members stated that the explanations given by the Government representative confirmed the long list of problems in the application of the Convention. Taking into account the fact that the Government had not communicated a first detailed report, its next report should imperatively be detailed. It would be appropriate if the Office provided technical support to the Government in organizing a technical mission to the areas concerned.

The Committee took note of the statements made by the Government representative and the discussions that had followed. It also noted that the comments of the Committee of Experts referred in particular to the lack of information on all the questions formulated by the Committee in its previous comments, which primarily related to the practical application of the Convention. The Committee took note that the comments of the Committee of Experts and the statements of certain members had raised the lack of a reply by the Government to the very serious allegations concerning the application of the Convention formulated by the workers' organizations. The Committee reminded the Government that non-compliance with the obligations arising from article 22 of the Constitution hampered the effectiveness with which the supervisory mechanism of the Organization was able to verify the manner in which the provisions of ratified Conventions had been applied. For the said reasons and taking note of detailed information communicated by the Government during the Conference, the Committee urged the Government to take all necessary efforts to adopt measures that would enable it to send on a regular basis, in its next reports, the information requested by the Committee of Experts, including on its comments on the allegations formulated by the workers' organizations in relation to the application of the Convention. The Committee noted the Government's request for technical assistance by the Office to collaborate, together with the organizations concerned, to achieving compliance with the Convention, and asked the Office to do its very best to provide this assistance.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

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

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, according to the report on the Mission to Paraguay by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2009, which quotes statistics from the General Directorate of Statistics, Surveys and Censuses of Paraguay, there are approximately 108,308 indigenous people in the country, belonging to 20 ethnic groups and five different language families and representing two per cent of the national population. Recalling that the legislation does not include self-identification as a criterion for defining the peoples covered by the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to incorporate this criterion into its future censuses and to give legislative expression to it in consultation with indigenous peoples. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would provide statistics on the indigenous communities in Paraguay.

Articles 8 to 11. Customary laws and administration of justice. The Committee recalls that, under sections 432–437 of the Penal Code, which regulate the procedure for acts liable to punishment in relation to indigenous peoples, when the sentence involves a period of detention of not more than two years, any legal representative of a community of the ethnic group of the convicted person may submit to the judge an alternative to the execution of the penalty, thereby complying more effectively with the aims of the Constitution with regard to the cultural identity of the convicted person under conditions more favourable to the latter (section 437). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on instances of the application of section 437 of the Penal Code and on any court decisions which have applied indigenous customary law. Please also provide information on the procedure and follow-up of any complaints submitted to the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI), particularly those relating to the exaction of compulsory personal services (social, civil or military) prohibited by the National Constitution.

Article 7. Participation, development projects and environment. The Committee refers to its previous comments and once again requests the Government to indicate the manner in which it is made possible for indigenous communities themselves to decide their own development priorities and whether indigenous peoples have been able to participate in establishing their priorities in the following projects: “Project for the Administration of Natural Resources”; “Project on Support for Production by Indigenous Communities”; “Integrated Management Project and Master Plan for the Pilcomayo River Basin” (PRODECHACO); “Alto Paraná”; and “Itapúa Norte”, and, if so, the manner in which they have done so. It also requests it to provide a copy of any studies carried out to assess the social, cultural, spiritual and environmental impact of those projects, indicating the participation of indigenous peoples in such projects.

Articles 16, 17 and 18. Relocation and unauthorized intrusion. The Committee refers to its previous comments concerning cases of “invasion by landless rural inhabitants” and displacement of indigenous communities, in particular by the Itaipú and Yaciretá dams. The Committee notes that, according to the report, cases of eviction or forced relocation of indigenous communities by landowners, soya farmers and other farmers often remain pending before the judicial authorities for several years and that in 2008 and 2009 INDI took legal action on more than ten occasions to secure protective measures. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to tackle the problem of the invasion of indigenous lands in a systematic manner and their impact. It also requests information on the number and nature of protective measures granted at the request of INDI. It also repeats its request for information on cases of relocation, with an indication of the consultations held with the peoples concerned before their relocation, the quality and quantity of lands available to them before and after the relocation, and the implementation of any mechanisms for the payment of compensation for the damage caused, with particular reference to the indigenous communities displaced by the Itaipú and Yaciretá dams.

Article 23. Traditional activities. The Committee notes Act No. 3232/2007 on financial assistance for indigenous communities. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the extent to which Act No. 3232/2007 contributes to strengthening and promoting the traditional activities of indigenous peoples.

Article 24. Social security. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that social security coverage does not extend to indigenous persons who “are engaged in informal work which tends to go unnoticed by the State since it lacks the infrastructure required to carry out local inspections”. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to strengthen the labour inspection services at the local level and to ensure that indigenous peoples are covered under social security schemes on an equal footing with other workers.

Article 25. Health. The Committee notes the adoption of the National Policy on Indigenous Health following a process of participation which involved the Inter-Institutional Round Table on Indigenous Health. It also notes the drafting, with the participation of the indigenous communities, of the Bill on the national indigenous health system which has not yet been submitted to the legislative authority. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of the National Policy on Indigenous Health and the measures taken to ensure that health-care centres are available in indigenous communities. Please provide a copy of the above Bill and information on any developments relating to the submission of that Bill to the legislative authority.

Articles 26 to 31. Education. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s report, illiteracy affects 51 per cent of indigenous persons. The Committee notes that in 2007, the Directorate General of Indigenous Schooling was created under Act No. 3231/2007. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the activities carried out by the Directorate General of Indigenous Schooling with a view to giving effect to Articles 26–31 of the Convention and on the manner in which it ensures in practice that indigenous peoples participate in the development of such activities.

Article 32. Contacts and cooperation across borders. The Committee notes with interest the cooperation agreement concluded between Paraguay and Bolivia in June 2009 concerning the Ayoreo people whose ancestral lands cover a large part of the northern region of the Paraguayan Chaco and southern Bolivia. It notes, in particular, that there are plans to create a bilateral body “to address the need for territorial unity for the Ayoreo people”. Please provide information on this matter.

Part VIII of the report form. Considering that the Convention is an important instrument for promoting dialogue and participation, the Committee recalls that Part VIII of the report form states that “Although such action is not required, the Government may find it helpful to consult organizations of indigenous or tribal peoples in the country, through their traditional institutions where they exist, on the measures taken to give effect to the present Convention, and in preparing reports on its application”. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether such consultations have been undertaken or are envisaged, and the results thereof.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee recalls that in 2006 the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards urged the Government to take measures to enable it to send full information on the questions raised by the Committee of Experts on a regular basis. In 2008 the Committee noted with regret that the Government’s report had not been received and therefore repeated its previous comments. Noting that the Government’s report was received in September 2009, the Committee hopes that the Government will continue its efforts to provide regular reports.

Article 20 of the Convention. Recruitment and conditions of employment. The Committee refers to its previous comments concerning discrimination relating to wages and treatment based on the indigenous origin of workers, particularly those working on ranches within the country and for Mennonite communities, which in certain cases constitute situations of forced labour. The Committee notes the conclusions of the report on the Mission to Paraguay by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2009 that a system of servitude and forced labour exists in the Chaco region. It notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Justice and Labour has established, under Resolution No. 230 of 2009, a tripartite committee, the Committee on Fundamental Rights at Work and the Prevention of Forced Labour, which has been entrusted with the task of drawing up an action plan on fundamental rights at work and the prevention of forced labour involving the participation of the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI). Furthermore, it notes that in September 2008, the Regional Labour Directorate opened an office in the town of Teniente Irala Fernández (Chaco region). It also notes that the eradication of forced labour is one of the priorities of the 2009 Decent Work Country Programme and that the Decent Work Country Programme includes the promotion of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the implementation of the above action plan and its impact on the eradication of forced labour involving indigenous peoples, including information on the extent to which the indigenous peoples concerned were consulted and participated in the development of that plan. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results of the inspections carried out by the Office of the Regional Labour Directorate for the Chaco region, the action taken and penalties imposed, and on any other initiatives undertaken by that Office with the aim of eradicating forced labour of, and discrimination against, indigenous peoples, particularly those working on ranches or in Mennonite communities. The Committee also refers to its comments under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).

Articles 2, 6, and 33. Coordinated and systematic action and consultation. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s report, the INDI can rely on the collaboration of a series of indigenous organizations and the support of several coordinating bodies, such as the Coordinating Committee for the Self-Determination of Indigenous Peoples (CAPI). In this regard, the Committee notes that in April 2009, the CAPI drew up, with the participation of 15 indigenous organizations, a series of “proposals for public policies on indigenous peoples”. It also notes the creation under Decree No. 1945 of the National Programme on Indigenous Peoples (PRONAPI) coordinated by the INDI, under which, according to the report, consultations will be held with indigenous peoples so that they can define their own needs. The Committee understands that based on the outcome of the consultations held in the context of the PRONAPI and on the CAPI initiative, an indigenous policy could be defined and a legislative reform carried out which includes the creation of a State body on indigenous affairs with the participation of indigenous peoples with regard to both its definition and composition. Noting the various organizations which collaborate with the INDI and its different coordinating bodies, the Committee emphasizes the importance of institutionalizing the participation of the peoples covered by the Convention in devising, implementing and overseeing the public policies which affect them, in accordance with Articles 2 and 33 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the consultations held in the context of the PRONAPI and on the CAPI initiative and on any resulting initiatives relating to legislative reform, including with regard to the institutionalization of indigenous participation. Noting that the Executive Authority’s Human Rights Network, created in June 2009, is competent to draw up a schedule of proposed measures, such as laws incorporating the international instruments ratified by the State, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the initiatives undertaken by the Network in relation to the Convention and on the measures taken to ensure coordination with the INDI and the participation of the peoples concerned.

Article 14. Rights to land. The Committee notes that, according to the report on the Mission to Paraguay by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 40 per cent of the indigenous communities in Paraguay still have no legal title to their lands. The Committee also notes that in July 2009, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights filed an application with the Inter-American Court under Case No. 12420 concerning the land rights of the indigenous community Xákmok Kásek of the Enxet-Lengua People whose land claim has been pending since 1990. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the legislation in force with regard to land claims by indigenous communities and the difficulties encountered in practice due to their geographical dispersion and creation of new communities. The Committee also notes the indigenous land regularization project, which is based on an agreement signed between the INDI and the World Bank; implementation of which began in 2008. The Committee requests the Government to take all the necessary measures, including measures of a procedural nature, to make rapid progress, in consultation with the peoples concerned, with regard to the regularization of indigenous lands and requests it to provide information on the following:

(i)    the progress made in the context of the INDI/World Bank project in that regard;

(ii)   the initiatives undertaken by the Inter-Institutional Committee responsible for the implementation of the measures necessary to carry out international rulings (CICSI);

(iii) the particulars and the percentage of indigenous communities whose lands have still not been regularized.

The Committee also refers to its previous comments and requests the Government to provide information on the application of Acts Nos 1372/88 and 43/89 establishing a procedure for the regularization of settlements of indigenous communities, in particular with regard to resolving cases in which the land occupied is insufficient given the number of indigenous claims, and on the establishment of adequate procedures within the national legal system, in accordance with Article 14(3).

Article 15. Natural resources. With regard to the exploitation of forestry resources, the Committee notes that under Resolution No. 1324 of 2008, the INDI suspended indefinitely the application of Resolution No. 139/07 on environmental and forestry management in relation to lands assigned to indigenous communities until adequate consultations with indigenous peoples determine whether the Resolution concerned will be amended or repealed. The Committee notes that Resolution No. 139/07 was adopted with the aim of “curbing the obvious plundering taking place in several communities” and that it was suspended because “in many circles there is a confusion between the authorization to implement management plans and the plundering of forest resources”. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consultations held for the purpose of amending Resolution No. 139/07 in relation to lands assigned to indigenous communities and their outcome, and on the measures taken to protect the rights of indigenous peoples to the natural resources existing on their lands, including their rights to participate in the use, management and conservation of those resources. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the penalties imposed by the Office of the Environmental Prosecutor at the request of the INDI in cases of ecological offences, and on applications submitted to the INDI by exploration companies seeking information on the existence of indigenous communities in certain areas of the country.

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

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2011.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes the statistical data provided by the Government from the 2002 census carried out by the Directorate of Statistics, Surveys and Census, indicating the number of indigenous persons in the country by region and by ethnic group. It also notes that the Government has not modified the Indigenous Communities Charter, adopted by Act No. 904/81 for the reasons indicated in the observation, and thus, self-identification as a criterion for defining indigenous peoples as provided for by the Convention has not been incorporated. The Committee, recalling that under paragraph 2 of this Article of the Convention, self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply, requests the Government to incorporate this criterion in its next report and to give legislative expression to it in consultation with indigenous people.

2. Administration of justice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) deals with complaints by indigenous persons irrespective of their subject; the information concerning the duties and powers of the offices of the Public Prosecutor and the Attorney-General relating to the defence of the rights of indigenous peoples, and the indication that the Supreme Court of Justice now has a list of specialists in indigenous customary law and experts on the various indigenous cultures. It also notes the existence of rulings of courts of law which have taken into account the customary law of indigenous persons. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the procedure and follow-up of complaints submitted to the INDI, particularly those relating to the exaction of compulsory personal services (social, civil or military) prohibited by the National Constitution. It also requests the Government to provide in its next report copies of the rulings to which it refers, and particularly any ruling by the courts relating to the rights established by the Convention, especially those in which specialists and experts intervene and those which have given rise to the application of the possibility referred to in section 437 of the Penal Code, to which the Committee referred in its previous comments.

3. Article 7. Participation, development projects and environment. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates the information provided in its previous comments, adding that in cases of private investment projects, the environmental legislation establishes the obligation to carry out environmental impact studies and that the Secretariat of the Environment (SEAM) is the authority responsible for the application of the corresponding standards. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the following development projects which directly affect the interests of various indigenous peoples in the country are being implemented: “Project for the Administration of Natural Resources”; “Project of Support for Production by Indigenous Communities”; “Integrated Management Project and Master Plan for the Cuenca del Rio Pilcomayo” (PRODECHACO); “Alto Paraná” and “Itapúa Norte”. The Committee recalls that Article 7 of the Convention provides that “the peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development”; that such peoples “shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programmes for national and regional development which may affect them directly”; and that “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 requests the Government to indicate the manner in which it is made possible for indigenous communities themselves to decide their own priorities for the process of development and to indicate whether indigenous peoples have been able to participate in establishing their priorities in the projects referred to and the manner in which they have done so. It also requests the Government to provide copies of any studies which have been carried out to assess the social, spiritual, cultural and environmental impact on indigenous peoples of such activities, with an indication of their participation in such studies.

Land

4. Articles 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, and 19. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in all cases indigenous peoples hold collective title over lands and that there is no significant indigenous group which uses lands not exclusively occupied by them. It also notes the procedure envisaged in Act No. 904 to regularize lands occupied by indigenous communities, both for settlements on public lands and settlements on private land, including the case of groups separated from their communities or which are dispersed, and the machinery envisaged to guarantee possession of occupied lands. It further notes the Government’s indication that in determining the lands claimed, account is taken of the free and explicit request by indigenous peoples, as well as the corresponding anthropological studies, and that Acts Nos 1372/88 and 43/89, establishing a procedure for the regularization of settlements of indigenous communities, apply to ensuring effective protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, and that the procedures have to be initiated with the INDI and the National Rural Development and Land Institute (INDERT). Noting that the land area to be adjudicated per indigenous family continues to be 20 hectares in the eastern region and 100 hectares in the western region, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on specific cases in which the various solutions envisaged by the above legislation have been applied, and on the measures adopted or envisaged to resolve cases in which the land occupied is insufficient in relation to the number of indigenous claims. Please provide information on the percentage of indigenous persons who have benefited from these procedures, and the land area concerned in relation to the total area of lands occupied or claimed by indigenous persons, particularly with regard to the situation of indigenous persons of the Chaco and the Mbyá people, with an indication of whether, in addition to the law, there is a programme promoted by the Government to resolve the regularization of lands occupied or claimed by indigenous persons.

5. Article 14, paragraph 3. Adequate procedures to resolve land claims by indigenous peoples.  The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are no specific procedures to resolve land claims by the peoples concerned, but that the rules established by the Civil Code are applied. It further notes that the Government has not provided information on the land claims of the indigenous communities of Lengua y Sanapaná, Fortuna, Laguna Pato, Santa Juanita, Riachito, Siete Horizontes, Aurora, Mbaracay and Totoviegosode, to which it referred in its previous comments. The Government nevertheless refers to the case of the indigenous community of Yakie Axa, which had to have recourse to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in view of the failure of the measures adopted at the national level, firstly so that the Government could purchase directly the lands claimed with a view to their restitution to the community concerned, and then to achieve their expropriation through the Chamber of Deputies. The Committee notes that the existing procedures relating to ownership do not appear to have responded in a satisfactory manner to resolving the land claims made by the peoples concerned, and the provisions of the Civil Code do not respond in certain respects to the rights established by the Convention. The Committee, therefore, invites the Government to consider establishing appropriate procedures in the context of the national legal system, in accordance with Article 14, paragraph 3, of the Convention and to provide information in this regard. Please provide information on the action taken in practice in relation to the cases referred to and regarding the indigenous communities Yakie Axa y Aché de Kuetuvy.

6. Articles 17, paragraph 3, and 18. With regard to the increase in what the Government terms “invasions by landless rural inhabitants” of indigenous lands, the Committee notes that there are no specific legal provisions to resolve the problem and that the Commission on Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples of the National Parliament has not yet undertaken a study of this situation, with the result that the provisions set out in the Civil Code and Penal Code have to be applied to such situations and the INDERT is adopting measures to relocate persons affected by the agrarian reform on appropriate lands so as to diminish the pressure on indigenous lands. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided the information requested on the impact of the court orders requiring the illegal settlers in Naranjito, Torreskue and Ka’ajovai to leave the area. The Committee hopes that the Government will adopt the necessary legislative and administrative measures, in consultation with indigenous peoples, to bring an end to these intrusions and that it will provide information on this subject in its next report.

7. Article 16. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it does not have precise information on cases of individuals or groups of indigenous persons who have been relocated from their habitual territories, but that unofficial information exists concerning the relocation of indigenous communities displaced by the Itaipú and Yaciretá dams. In previous comments the Committee noted information in the Government’s report on relocations of certain indigenous communities. The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will be in a position to provide the information requested regarding such cases, with an indication of the consultations held with the peoples concerned before their relocation, on the quality and quantity of lands available to them before and after the relocation and on the implementation of any mechanisms for the payment of compensation for the damage caused, with particular reference to the indigenous communities displaced by the Itaipú and Yaciretá dams.

Natural resources

8. Article 15. With regard to any exploration or exploitation of natural resources in indigenous lands, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that hydrocarbons and minerals are the property of the State and that no indigenous community has such resources in its subsoil. However, it indicates that applications have been submitted to the INDI by exploration companies seeking information on the existence of indigenous communities in certain areas of the country. It adds that the most common activity is the exploitation of forestry resources undertaken by forestry companies with the agreement of the leaders of indigenous communities. Furthermore, the Government states that resolution No. 02/003 of the INDI explicitly prohibits this type of exploitation in all indigenous communities and settlements in the country in accordance with the legal provisions respecting ecological offences, and that the authority which intervenes to prosecute and penalize such offences is the Office of the Environmental Prosecutor, at the request of the INDI. The Committee recalls that Article 15, paragraph 1, provides that it is the obligation of the State to ensure that the rights of the peoples concerned to the natural resources pertaining to their lands shall be specially safeguarded, and that these rights include the right of these peoples to participate in the use, management and conservation of these resources. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to provide detailed information on any measures adopted or envisaged to ensure the application of this provision of the Convention, and on specific cases in which effect has been given to the resolution of the INDI referred to above through the Office of the Environmental Prosecutor, and the results achieved. It further requests the Government to keep it informed of any requests for information made by mining companies affecting the lands traditionally occupied by indigenous persons, taking into account the scope of the term “lands” within the meaning of Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

9. Articles 24 and 25 (social security and health) and 26 to 31 (education and means of communication). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in relation to points 21 and 22 of its previous direct request and will continue to monitor compliance with the provisions of the Convention through the information provided by the Government in future reports. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to provide statistical data, in so far as possible, on the literacy and school attendance rates achieved for indigenous populations in comparison with the rest of the population.

10. Comments of the National Union of Workers (CNT). The Committee notes that the Government has not provided information on the comments made by the CNT in its communication dated 19 November 2004. Please provide such information in the next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report, received in March 2006, the information provided by the Government to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2006 and the ensuing debate, as a result of which the Committee on the Application of Standards urged the Government to adopt measures to enable it to send on a regular basis the information requested by the Committee of Experts. It emphasized the importance of providing information on the practical application of the Convention, in particular regarding the various aspects relating to the recruitment and conditions of employment of indigenous persons. It recalled the Government’s obligation to consult and ensure the participation of indigenous peoples with respect to measures that might affect them and it suggested that the Government should consider requesting further ILO technical assistance regarding the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that although all the information requested on the application of the Convention in practice has not been provided, the Government has made an effort to gather information in its report and to submit additional information during the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. The Committee hopes that the Government will make efforts to provide its report on the application of the Convention within the established time limits and that, in particular, it will provide information on the application in practice of certain provisions indicated in the following paragraphs and the direct request. The Committee invites the Government to request the Office’s technical assistance with a view to examining possible solutions to the problems of application indicated in the Committee’s comments.

Recruitment and conditions of employment

2. Article 20 of the Convention. With regard to discrimination in relation to wages and treatment based on the indigenous origin of workers, particularly those working on ranches within the country and for Mennonite communities (which in certain cases constitute situations of forced labour), the Committee notes the Government’s indication that with the cooperation of the ILO, a field study was undertaken, which is summarized in the document entitled “Debt Bondage and Marginalization in the Paraguayan Chaco”. The study shows that the labour situation of indigenous communities in the Paraguayan Chaco is often a result of cultural issues. The Government adds that the document was subjected to tripartite analysis in seminars in which the participants included representatives of indigenous communities and that the Ministry of Justice and Labour dispatched labour inspectors to ascertain the situations described. The Committee notes with interest the Inter-Institutional Cooperation Agreement between the Ministry of Justice and Labour and the municipal authorities of Mariscal José Félix Estigarribia (the centre of the Paraguayan Chaco). Pursuant to the Agreement, a regional office of the General Directorate of Labour will be established to cover cases in the western region of the country, and the officials in that office will participate in radio programmes broadcast widely in the Chaco region to disseminate information regarding the labour rights of workers and employers inter alia. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide all the necessary means to the abovementioned office so that it is able to take effective action against discrimination and forced labour, and to ensure decent work for indigenous peoples. The Committee, in particular, asks the Government to keep it informed of the activities undertaken by the regional office to eliminate forced labour and discrimination and to give effect to Article 20 of the Convention and on the results and impact achieved in practice, particularly with regard to the situation on ranches and in Mennonite communities. Please also provide information on the number and outcome of inspections undertaken and the measures adopted as a result.

Consultation and participation – coordinated and systematic action

3. Article 6. Consultation. The Committee notes that according to the report, Act No. 2822, “the Statutes of Indigenous Peoples and Communities”, approved by the National Congress on 3 November 2005, which repealed Act No. 904/81, “Statute of Indigenous Communities”, was partially vetoed by the executive authority upon the proposal of the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) and representative indigenous organizations on the ground that it contained unconstitutional provisions and violated the rights of indigenous communities recognized in the Constitution. It also notes the Government’s indication that Bill No. 2822 was the culmination of a process initiated in March 2004 in the context of the programme for the institutional strengthening of the INDI, during which consultations were held with indigenous peoples through workshops, personal interviews with indigenous leaders, working meetings and visits to communities. The process concluded with an Indigenous Congress held in March 2005, which issued guidance for more effective application and compliance with constitutional rights, including the amendment of Act No. 904/81, which gave rise to the submission of the above Bill to the National Congress without a final review by the representative indigenous organizations. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the communication of the National Union of Workers (CNT) received on 10 August 2001, according to which the Bill referred to above governs the operation of the institutions responsible for the national indigenous policy, and observed that the obligation of consultation had not been given effect. As the Government plans to adopt legislation governing the rights of indigenous peoples at the national level, the Committee hopes that the Government, in the process of the adoption of the legislation on indigenous rights, will comply with the requirement of prior consultation in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention. The Committee considers that the consultation and participation machinery envisaged in the Convention contributes to the progressive implementation of the Convention on indigenous peoples. It further considers that by engaging in genuine dialogue with these peoples on issues which affect them, progress will be made in the development of inclusive instruments which will contribute to reducing tension and increasing social cohesion. The Committee hopes that the Government will keep it informed regarding the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure consultation within the meaning of the Convention on the relevant legislative and administrative measures, and particularly with regard to the Bill vetoed by the executive authority.

4. Articles 2 and 33. Coordinated and systematic action with the participation of indigenous peoples. The Committee also wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that Articles 2 and 33 of the Convention provide for coordinated and systematic action, with the participation of indigenous peoples, from the planning to the evaluation of the measures envisaged in the Convention. The Committee urges the Government to make every effort, in cooperation with the peoples concerned, to achieve progress in the implementation of these Articles. Indeed, the consultation envisaged by the Convention goes beyond consultation on specific cases and requires the whole system for the application of the provisions of the Convention to be implemented in a systematic and coordinated manner in cooperation with indigenous peoples. This presupposes a gradual process of the establishment of appropriate bodies and machinery for this purpose. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted in this respect.

5. Part VIII of the report form. The Committee, considering that the Convention is fundamentally an instrument promoting dialogue and participation, wishes to remind the Government that this point of the report form, approved by the Governing Body, indicates that “although such action is not required, the Government may find it helpful to consult organizations of indigenous or tribal peoples in the country, through their traditional institutions where they exist, on the measures taken to give effect to the present Convention, and in preparing reports on its application”. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether it is planning to hold such consultations.

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

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes the statistical data provided by the Government from the 2002 census carried out by the Directorate of Statistics, Surveys and Census, indicating the number of indigenous persons in the country by region and by ethnic group. It also notes that the Government has not modified the Indigenous Communities Charter, adopted by Act No. 904/81 for the reasons indicated in the observation, and thus, self-identification as a criterion for defining indigenous peoples as provided for by the Convention has not been incorporated. The Committee, recalling that under paragraph 2 of this Article of the Convention, self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply, requests the Government to incorporate this criterion in its next report and to give legislative expression to it in consultation with indigenous people.

2. Administration of justice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) deals with complaints by indigenous persons irrespective of their subject; the information concerning the duties and powers of the offices of the Public Prosecutor and the Attorney-General relating to the defence of the rights of indigenous peoples, and the indication that the Supreme Court of Justice now has a list of specialists in indigenous customary law and experts on the various indigenous cultures. It also notes the existence of rulings of courts of law which have taken into account the customary law of indigenous persons. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the procedure and follow-up of complaints submitted to the INDI, particularly those relating to the exaction of compulsory personal services (social, civil or military) prohibited by the National Constitution. It also requests the Government to provide in its next report copies of the rulings to which it refers, and particularly any ruling by the courts relating to the rights established by the Convention, especially those in which specialists and experts intervene and those which have given rise to the application of the possibility referred to in section 437 of the Penal Code, to which the Committee referred in its previous comments.

3. Article 7. Participation, development projects and environment. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates the information provided in its previous comments, adding that in cases of private investment projects, the environmental legislation establishes the obligation to carry out environmental impact studies and that the Secretariat of the Environment (SEAM) is the authority responsible for the application of the corresponding standards. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the following development projects which directly affect the interests of various indigenous peoples in the country are being implemented: “Project for the Administration of Natural Resources”; “Project of Support for Production by Indigenous Communities”; “Integrated Management Project and Master Plan for the Cuenca del Rio Pilcomayo” (PRODECHACO); “Alto Paraná” and “Itapúa Norte”. The Committee recalls that Article 7 of the Convention provides that “the peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development”; that such peoples “shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programmes for national and regional development which may affect them directly”; and that “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 requests the Government to indicate the manner in which it is made possible for indigenous communities themselves to decide their own priorities for the process of development and to indicate whether indigenous peoples have been able to participate in establishing their priorities in the projects referred to and the manner in which they have done so. It also requests the Government to provide copies of any studies which have been carried out to assess the social, spiritual, cultural and environmental impact on indigenous peoples of such activities, with an indication of their participation in such studies.

Land

4. Articles 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, and 19. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in all cases indigenous peoples hold collective title over lands and that there is no significant indigenous group which uses lands not exclusively occupied by them. It also notes the procedure envisaged in Act No. 904 to regularize lands occupied by indigenous communities, both for settlements on public lands and settlements on private land, including the case of groups separated from their communities or which are dispersed, and the machinery envisaged to guarantee possession of occupied lands. It further notes the Government’s indication that in determining the lands claimed, account is taken of the free and explicit request by indigenous peoples, as well as the corresponding anthropological studies, and that Acts Nos 1372/88 and 43/89, establishing a procedure for the regularization of settlements of indigenous communities, apply to ensuring effective protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, and that the procedures have to be initiated with the INDI and the National Rural Development and Land Institute (INDERT). Noting that the land area to be adjudicated per indigenous family continues to be 20 hectares in the eastern region and 100 hectares in the western region, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on specific cases in which the various solutions envisaged by the above legislation have been applied, and on the measures adopted or envisaged to resolve cases in which the land occupied is insufficient in relation to the number of indigenous claims. Please provide information on the percentage of indigenous persons who have benefited from these procedures, and the land area concerned in relation to the total area of lands occupied or claimed by indigenous persons, particularly with regard to the situation of indigenous persons of the Chaco and the Mbyá people, with an indication of whether, in addition to the law, there is a programme promoted by the Government to resolve the regularization of lands occupied or claimed by indigenous persons.

5. Article 14, paragraph 3. Adequate procedures to resolve land claims by indigenous peoples.  The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are no specific procedures to resolve land claims by the peoples concerned, but that the rules established by the Civil Code are applied. It further notes that the Government has not provided information on the land claims of the indigenous communities of Lengua y Sanapaná, Fortuna, Laguna Pato, Santa Juanita, Riachito, Siete Horizontes, Aurora, Mbaracay and Totoviegosode, to which it referred in its previous comments. The Government nevertheless refers to the case of the indigenous community of Yakie Axa, which had to have recourse to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in view of the failure of the measures adopted at the national level, firstly so that the Government could purchase directly the lands claimed with a view to their restitution to the community concerned, and then to achieve their expropriation through the Chamber of Deputies. The Committee notes that the existing procedures relating to ownership do not appear to have responded in a satisfactory manner to resolving the land claims made by the peoples concerned, and the provisions of the Civil Code do not respond in certain respects to the rights established by the Convention. The Committee, therefore, invites the Government to consider establishing appropriate procedures in the context of the national legal system, in accordance with Article 14, paragraph 3, of the Convention and to provide information in this regard. Please provide information on the action taken in practice in relation to the cases referred to and regarding the indigenous communities Yakie Axa y Aché de Kuetuvy.

6. Articles 17, paragraph 3, and 18. With regard to the increase in what the Government terms “invasions by landless rural inhabitants” of indigenous lands, the Committee notes that there are no specific legal provisions to resolve the problem and that the Commission on Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples of the National Parliament has not yet undertaken a study of this situation, with the result that the provisions set out in the Civil Code and Penal Code have to be applied to such situations and the INDERT is adopting measures to relocate persons affected by the agrarian reform on appropriate lands so as to diminish the pressure on indigenous lands. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided the information requested on the impact of the court orders requiring the illegal settlers in Naranjito, Torreskue and Ka’ajovai to leave the area. The Committee hopes that the Government will adopt the necessary legislative and administrative measures, in consultation with indigenous peoples, to bring an end to these intrusions and that it will provide information on this subject in its next report.

7. Article 16. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it does not have precise information on cases of individuals or groups of indigenous persons who have been relocated from their habitual territories, but that unofficial information exists concerning the relocation of indigenous communities displaced by the Itaipú and Yaciretá dams. In previous comments the Committee noted information in the Government’s report on relocations of certain indigenous communities. The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will be in a position to provide the information requested regarding such cases, with an indication of the consultations held with the peoples concerned before their relocation, on the quality and quantity of lands available to them before and after the relocation and on the implementation of any mechanisms for the payment of compensation for the damage caused, with particular reference to the indigenous communities displaced by the Itaipú and Yaciretá dams.

Natural resources

8. Article 15. With regard to any exploration or exploitation of natural resources in indigenous lands, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that hydrocarbons and minerals are the property of the State and that no indigenous community has such resources in its subsoil. However, it indicates that applications have been submitted to the INDI by exploration companies seeking information on the existence of indigenous communities in certain areas of the country. It adds that the most common activity is the exploitation of forestry resources undertaken by forestry companies with the agreement of the leaders of indigenous communities. Furthermore, the Government states that resolution No. 02/003 of the INDI explicitly prohibits this type of exploitation in all indigenous communities and settlements in the country in accordance with the legal provisions respecting ecological offences, and that the authority which intervenes to prosecute and penalize such offences is the Office of the Environmental Prosecutor, at the request of the INDI. The Committee recalls that Article 15, paragraph 1, provides that it is the obligation of the State to ensure that the rights of the peoples concerned to the natural resources pertaining to their lands shall be specially safeguarded, and that these rights include the right of these peoples to participate in the use, management and conservation of these resources. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to provide detailed information on any measures adopted or envisaged to ensure the application of this provision of the Convention, and on specific cases in which effect has been given to the resolution of the INDI referred to above through the Office of the Environmental Prosecutor, and the results achieved. It further requests the Government to keep it informed of any requests for information made by mining companies affecting the lands traditionally occupied by indigenous persons, taking into account the scope of the term “lands” within the meaning of Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

9. Articles 24 and 25 (social security and health) and 26 to 31 (education and means of communication). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in relation to points 21 and 22 of its previous direct request and will continue to monitor compliance with the provisions of the Convention through the information provided by the Government in future reports. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to provide statistical data, in so far as possible, on the literacy and school attendance rates achieved for indigenous populations in comparison with the rest of the population.

10. Comments of the National Union of Workers (CNT). The Committee notes that the Government has not provided information on the comments made by the CNT in its communication dated 19 November 2004. Please provide such information in the next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report, received in March 2006, the information provided by the Government to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2006 and the ensuing debate, as a result of which the Committee on the Application of Standards urged the Government to adopt measures to enable it to send on a regular basis the information requested by the Committee of Experts. It emphasized the importance of providing information on the practical application of the Convention, in particular regarding the various aspects relating to the recruitment and conditions of employment of indigenous persons. It recalled the Government’s obligation to consult and ensure the participation of indigenous peoples with respect to measures that might affect them and it suggested that the Government should consider requesting further ILO technical assistance regarding the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that although all the information requested on the application of the Convention in practice has not been provided, the Government has made an effort to gather information in its report and to submit additional information during the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. The Committee hopes that the Government will make efforts to provide its report on the application of the Convention within the established time limits and that, in particular, it will provide information on the application in practice of certain provisions indicated in the following paragraphs and the direct request. The Committee invites the Government to request the Office’s technical assistance with a view to examining possible solutions to the problems of application indicated in the Committee’s comments.

Recruitment and conditions of employment

2. Article 20 of the Convention. With regard to discrimination in relation to wages and treatment based on the indigenous origin of workers, particularly those working on ranches within the country and for Mennonite communities (which in certain cases constitute situations of forced labour), the Committee notes the Government’s indication that with the cooperation of the ILO, a field study was undertaken, which is summarized in the document entitled “Debt Bondage and Marginalization in the Paraguayan Chaco”. The study shows that the labour situation of indigenous communities in the Paraguayan Chaco is often a result of cultural issues. The Government adds that the document was subjected to tripartite analysis in seminars in which the participants included representatives of indigenous communities and that the Ministry of Justice and Labour dispatched labour inspectors to ascertain the situations described. The Committee notes with interest the Inter-Institutional Cooperation Agreement between the Ministry of Justice and Labour and the municipal authorities of Mariscal José Félix Estigarribia (the centre of the Paraguayan Chaco). Pursuant to the Agreement, a regional office of the General Directorate of Labour will be established to cover cases in the western region of the country, and the officials in that office will participate in radio programmes broadcast widely in the Chaco region to disseminate information regarding the labour rights of workers and employers inter alia. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide all the necessary means to the abovementioned office so that it is able to take effective action against discrimination and forced labour, and to ensure decent work for indigenous peoples. The Committee, in particular, asks the Government to keep it informed of the activities undertaken by the regional office to eliminate forced labour and discrimination and to give effect to Article 20 of the Convention and on the results and impact achieved in practice, particularly with regard to the situation on ranches and in Mennonite communities. Please also provide information on the number and outcome of inspections undertaken and the measures adopted as a result.

Consultation and participation – coordinated and systematic action

3. Article 6. Consultation. The Committee notes that according to the report, Act No. 2822, “the Statutes of Indigenous Peoples and Communities”, approved by the National Congress on 3 November 2005, which repealed Act No. 904/81, “Statute of Indigenous Communities”, was partially vetoed by the executive authority upon the proposal of the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) and representative indigenous organizations on the ground that it contained unconstitutional provisions and violated the rights of indigenous communities recognized in the Constitution. It also notes the Government’s indication that Bill No. 2822 was the culmination of a process initiated in March 2004 in the context of the programme for the institutional strengthening of the INDI, during which consultations were held with indigenous peoples through workshops, personal interviews with indigenous leaders, working meetings and visits to communities. The process concluded with an Indigenous Congress held in March 2005, which issued guidance for more effective application and compliance with constitutional rights, including the amendment of Act No. 904/81, which gave rise to the submission of the above Bill to the National Congress without a final review by the representative indigenous organizations. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the communication of the National Union of Workers (CNT) received on 10 August 2001, according to which the Bill referred to above governs the operation of the institutions responsible for the national indigenous policy, and observed that the obligation of consultation had not been given effect. As the Government plans to adopt legislation governing the rights of indigenous peoples at the national level, the Committee hopes that the Government, in the process of the adoption of the legislation on indigenous rights, will comply with the requirement of prior consultation in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention. The Committee considers that the consultation and participation machinery envisaged in the Convention contributes to the progressive implementation of the Convention on indigenous peoples. It further considers that by engaging in genuine dialogue with these peoples on issues which affect them, progress will be made in the development of inclusive instruments which will contribute to reducing tension and increasing social cohesion. The Committee hopes that the Government will keep it informed regarding the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure consultation within the meaning of the Convention on the relevant legislative and administrative measures, and particularly with regard to the Bill vetoed by the executive authority.

4. Articles 2 and 33. Coordinated and systematic action with the participation of indigenous peoples. The Committee also wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that Articles 2 and 33 of the Convention provide for coordinated and systematic action, with the participation of indigenous peoples, from the planning to the evaluation of the measures envisaged in the Convention. The Committee urges the Government to make every effort, in cooperation with the peoples concerned, to achieve progress in the implementation of these Articles. Indeed, the consultation envisaged by the Convention goes beyond consultation on specific cases and requires the whole system for the application of the provisions of the Convention to be implemented in a systematic and coordinated manner in cooperation with indigenous peoples. This presupposes a gradual process of the establishment of appropriate bodies and machinery for this purpose. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted in this respect.

5. Part VIII of the report form. The Committee, considering that the Convention is fundamentally an instrument promoting dialogue and participation, wishes to remind the Government that this point of the report form, approved by the Governing Body, indicates that “although such action is not required, the Government may find it helpful to consult organizations of indigenous or tribal peoples in the country, through their traditional institutions where they exist, on the measures taken to give effect to the present Convention, and in preparing reports on its application”. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether it is planning to hold such consultations.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes the statistical data provided by the Government from the 2002 census carried out by the Directorate of Statistics, Surveys and Census, indicating the number of indigenous persons in the country by region and by ethnic group. It also notes that the Government has not modified the Indigenous Communities Charter, adopted by Act No. 904/81 for the reasons indicated in the observation, and thus, self-identification as a criterion for defining indigenous peoples as provided for by the Convention has not been incorporated. The Committee, recalling that under paragraph 2 of this Article of the Convention, self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply, requests the Government to incorporate this criterion in its next report and to give legislative expression to it in consultation with indigenous people.

2. Administration of justice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) deals with complaints by indigenous persons irrespective of their subject; the information concerning the duties and powers of the offices of the Public Prosecutor and the Attorney-General relating to the defence of the rights of indigenous peoples, and the indication that the Supreme Court of Justice now has a list of specialists in indigenous customary law and experts on the various indigenous cultures. It also notes the existence of rulings of courts of law which have taken into account the customary law of indigenous persons. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the procedure and follow-up of complaints submitted to the INDI, particularly those relating to the exaction of compulsory personal services (social, civil or military) prohibited by the National Constitution. It also requests the Government to provide in its next report copies of the rulings to which it refers, and particularly any ruling by the courts relating to the rights established by the Convention, especially those in which specialists and experts intervene and those which have given rise to the application of the possibility referred to in section 437 of the Penal Code, to which the Committee referred in its previous comments.

3. Article 7. Participation, development projects and environment. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates the information provided in its previous comments, adding that in cases of private investment projects, the environmental legislation establishes the obligation to carry out environmental impact studies and that the Secretariat of the Environment (SEAM) is the authority responsible for the application of the corresponding standards. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the following development projects which directly affect the interests of various indigenous peoples in the country are being implemented: “Project for the Administration of Natural Resources”; “Project of Support for Production by Indigenous Communities”; “Integrated Management Project and Master Plan for the Cuenca del Rio Pilcomayo” (PRODECHACO); “Alto Paraná” and “Itapúa Norte”. The Committee recalls that Article 7 of the Convention provides that “the peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development”; that such peoples “shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programmes for national and regional development which may affect them directly”; and that “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 requests the Government to indicate the manner in which it is made possible for indigenous communities themselves to decide their own priorities for the process of development and to indicate whether indigenous peoples have been able to participate in establishing their priorities in the projects referred to and the manner in which they have done so. It also requests the Government to provide copies of any studies which have been carried out to assess the social, spiritual, cultural and environmental impact on indigenous peoples of such activities, with an indication of their participation in such studies.

Land

4. Articles 14, paragraphs 1 and 2, and 19. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in all cases indigenous peoples hold collective title over lands and that there is no significant indigenous group which uses lands not exclusively occupied by them. It also notes the procedure envisaged in Act No. 904 to regularize lands occupied by indigenous communities, both for settlements on public lands and settlements on private land, including the case of groups separated from their communities or which are dispersed, and the machinery envisaged to guarantee possession of occupied lands. It further notes the Government’s indication that in determining the lands claimed, account is taken of the free and explicit request by indigenous peoples, as well as the corresponding anthropological studies, and that Acts Nos. 1372/88 and 43/89, establishing a procedure for the regularization of settlements of indigenous communities, apply to ensuring effective protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, and that the procedures have to be initiated with the INDI and the National Rural Development and Land Institute (INDERT). Noting that the land area to be adjudicated per indigenous family continues to be 20 hectares in the eastern region and 100 hectares in the western region, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on specific cases in which the various solutions envisaged by the above legislation have been applied, and on the measures adopted or envisaged to resolve cases in which the land occupied is insufficient in relation to the number of indigenous claims. Please provide information on the percentage of indigenous persons who have benefited from these procedures, and the land area concerned in relation to the total area of lands occupied or claimed by indigenous persons, particularly with regard to the situation of indigenous persons of the Chaco and the Mbyá people, with an indication of whether, in addition to the law, there is a programme promoted by the Government to resolve the regularization of lands occupied or claimed by indigenous persons.

5. Article 14, paragraph 3. Adequate procedures to resolve land claims by indigenous peoples.  The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are no specific procedures to resolve land claims by the peoples concerned, but that the rules established by the Civil Code are applied. It further notes that the Government has not provided information on the land claims of the indigenous communities of Lengua y Sanapaná, Fortuna, Laguna Pato, Santa Juanita, Riachito, Siete Horizontes, Aurora, Mbaracay and Totoviegosode, to which it referred in its previous comments. The Government nevertheless refers to the case of the indigenous community of Yakie Axa, which had to have recourse to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in view of the failure of the measures adopted at the national level, firstly so that the Government could purchase directly the lands claimed with a view to their restitution to the community concerned, and then to achieve their expropriation through the Chamber of Deputies. The Committee notes that the existing procedures relating to ownership do not appear to have responded in a satisfactory manner to resolving the land claims made by the peoples concerned, and the provisions of the Civil Code do not respond in certain respects to the rights established by the Convention. The Committee, therefore, invites the Government to consider establishing appropriate procedures in the context of the national legal system, in accordance with Article 14, paragraph 3, of the Convention and to provide information in this regard. Please provide information on the action taken in practice in relation to the cases referred to and regarding the indigenous communities Yakie Axa y Aché de Kuetuvy.

6. Articles 17, paragraph 3, and 18. With regard to the increase in what the Government terms “invasions by landless rural inhabitants” of indigenous lands, the Committee notes that there are no specific legal provisions to resolve the problem and that the Commission on Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples of the National Parliament has not yet undertaken a study of this situation, with the result that the provisions set out in the Civil Code and Penal Code have to be applied to such situations and the INDERT is adopting measures to relocate persons affected by the agrarian reform on appropriate lands so as to diminish the pressure on indigenous lands. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided the information requested on the impact of the court orders requiring the illegal settlers in Naranjito, Torreskue and Ka’ajovai to leave the area. The Committee hopes that the Government will adopt the necessary legislative and administrative measures, in consultation with indigenous peoples, to bring an end to these intrusions and that it will provide information on this subject in its next report.

7. Article 16. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it does not have precise information on cases of individuals or groups of indigenous persons who have been relocated from their habitual territories, but that unofficial information exists concerning the relocation of indigenous communities displaced by the Itaipú and Yaciretá dams. In previous comments the Committee noted information in the Government’s report on relocations of certain indigenous communities. The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will be in a position to provide the information requested regarding such cases, with an indication of the consultations held with the people’s concerned before their relocation, on the quality and quantity of lands available to them before and after the relocation and on the implementation of any mechanisms for the payment of compensation for the damage caused, with particular reference to the indigenous communities displaced by the Itaipú and Yaciretá dams.

Natural resources

8. Article 15. With regard to any exploration or exploitation of natural resources in indigenous lands, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that hydrocarbons and minerals are the property of the State and that no indigenous community has such resources in its subsoil. However, it indicates that applications have been submitted to the INDI by exploration companies seeking information on the existence of indigenous communities in certain areas of the country. It adds that the most common activity is the exploitation of forestry resources undertaken by forestry companies with the agreement of the leaders of indigenous communities. Furthermore, the Government states that resolution No. 02/003 of the INDI explicitly prohibits this type of exploitation in all indigenous communities and settlements in the country in accordance with the legal provisions respecting ecological offences, and that the authority which intervenes to prosecute and penalize such offences is the Office of the Environmental Prosecutor, at the request of the INDI. The Committee recalls that Article 15, paragraph 1, provides that it is the obligation of the State to ensure that the rights of the peoples concerned to the natural resources pertaining to their lands shall be specially safeguarded, and that these rights include the right of these peoples to participate in the use, management and conservation of these resources. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to provide detailed information on any measures adopted or envisaged to ensure the application of this provision of the Convention, and on specific cases in which effect has been given to the resolution of the INDI referred to above through the Office of the Environmental Prosecutor, and the results achieved. It further requests the Government to keep it informed of any requests for information made by mining companies affecting the lands traditionally occupied by indigenous persons, taking into account the scope of the term “lands” within the meaning of Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

9. Articles 24 and 25 (social security and health) and 26 to 31 (education and means of communication). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in relation to points 21 and 22 of its previous direct request and will continue to monitor compliance with the provisions of the Convention through the information provided by the Government in future reports. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to provide statistical data, in so far as possible, on the literacy and school attendance rates achieved for indigenous populations in comparison with the rest of the population.

10. Comments of the National Union of Workers (CNT). The Committee notes that the Government has not provided information on the comments made by the CNT in its communication dated 19 November 2004. Please provide such information in the next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

1. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report, received in March 2006, the information provided by the Government to the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2006 and the ensuing debate, as a result of which the Committee on the Application of Standards urged the Government to adopt measures to enable it to send on a regular basis the information requested by the Committee of Experts. It emphasized the importance of providing information on the practical application of the Convention, in particular regarding the various aspects relating to the recruitment and conditions of employment of indigenous persons. It recalled the Government’s obligation to consult and ensure the participation of indigenous peoples with respect to measures that might affect them and it suggested that the Government should consider requesting further ILO technical assistance regarding the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that although all the information requested on the application of the Convention in practice has not been provided, the Government has made an effort to gather information in its report and to submit additional information during the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. The Committee hopes that the Government will make efforts to provide its report on the application of the Convention within the established time limits and that, in particular, it will provide information on the application in practice of certain provisions indicated in the following paragraphs and the direct request. The Committee invites the Government to request the Office’s technical assistance with a view to examining possible solutions to the problems of application indicated in the Committee’s comments.

Recruitment and conditions of employment

2. Article 20 of the Convention. With regard to discrimination in relation to wages and treatment based on the indigenous origin of workers, particularly those working on ranches within the country and for Mennonite communities (which in certain cases constitute situations of forced labour), the Committee notes the Government’s indication that with the cooperation of the ILO, a field study was undertaken, which is summarized in the document entitled “Debt Bondage and Marginalization in the Paraguayan Chaco”. The study shows that the labour situation of indigenous communities in the Paraguayan Chaco is often a result of cultural issues. The Government adds that the document was subjected to tripartite analysis in seminars in which the participants included representatives of indigenous communities and that the Ministry of Justice and Labour dispatched labour inspectors to ascertain the situations described. The Committee notes with interest the Inter-Institutional Cooperation Agreement between the Ministry of Justice and Labour and the municipal authorities of Mariscal José Félix Estigarribia (the centre of the Paraguayan Chaco). Pursuant to the Agreement, a regional office of the General Directorate of Labour will be established to cover cases in the western region of the country, and the officials in that office will participate in radio programmes broadcast widely in the Chaco region to disseminate information regarding the labour rights of workers and employers inter alia. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide all the necessary means to the abovementioned office so that it is able to take effective action against discrimination and forced labour, and to ensure decent work for indigenous peoples. The Committee, in particular, asks the Government to keep it informed of the activities undertaken by the regional office to eliminate forced labour and discrimination and to give effect to Article 20 of the Convention and on the results and impact achieved in practice, particularly with regard to the situation on ranches and in Mennonite communities. Please also provide information on the number and outcome of inspections undertaken and the measures adopted as a result.

Consultation and participation – coordinated
and systematic action

3. Article 6. Consultation. The Committee notes that according to the report, Act No. 2822, “the Statutes of Indigenous Peoples and Communities”, approved by the National Congress on 3 November 2005, which repealed Act No. 904/81, “Statute of Indigenous Communities”, was partially vetoed by the executive authority upon the proposal of the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) and representative indigenous organizations on the ground that it contained unconstitutional provisions and violated the rights of indigenous communities recognized in the Constitution. It also notes the Government’s indication that Bill No. 2822 was the culmination of a process initiated in March 2004 in the context of the programme for the institutional strengthening of the INDI, during which consultations were held with indigenous peoples through workshops, personal interviews with indigenous leaders, working meetings and visits to communities. The process concluded with an Indigenous Congress held in March 2005, which issued guidance for more effective application and compliance with constitutional rights, including the amendment of Act No. 904/81, which gave rise to the submission of the above Bill to the National Congress without a final review by the representative indigenous organizations. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the communication of the National Union of Workers (CNT) received on 10 August 2001, according to which the Bill referred to above governs the operation of the institutions responsible for the national indigenous policy, and observed that the obligation of consultation had not been given effect. As the Government plans to adopt legislation governing the rights of indigenous peoples at the national level, the Committee hopes that the Government, in the process of the adoption of the legislation on indigenous rights, will comply with the requirement of prior consultation in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention. The Committee considers that the consultation and participation machinery envisaged in the Convention contributes to the progressive implementation of the Convention on indigenous peoples. It further considers that by engaging in genuine dialogue with these peoples on issues which affect them, progress will be made in the development of inclusive instruments which will contribute to reducing tension and increasing social cohesion. The Committee hopes that the Government will keep it informed regarding the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure consultation within the meaning of the Convention on the relevant legislative and administrative measures, and particularly with regard to the Bill vetoed by the executive authority.

4. Articles 2 and 33. Coordinated and systematic action with the participation of indigenous peoples. The Committee also wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that Articles 2 and 33 of the Convention provide for coordinated and systematic action, with the participation of indigenous peoples, from the planning to the evaluation of the measures envisaged in the Convention. The Committee urges the Government to make every effort, in cooperation with the peoples concerned, to achieve progress in the implementation of these Articles. Indeed, the consultation envisaged by the Convention goes beyond consultation on specific cases and requires the whole system for the application of the provisions of the Convention to be implemented in a systematic and coordinated manner in cooperation with indigenous peoples. This presupposes a gradual process of the establishment of appropriate bodies and machinery for this purpose. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted in this respect.

5. Part VIII of the report form. The Committee, considering that the Convention is fundamentally an instrument promoting dialogue and participation, wishes to remind the Government that this point of the report form, approved by the Governing Body, indicates that “although such action is not required, the Government may find it helpful to consult organizations of indigenous or tribal peoples in the country, through their traditional institutions where they exist, on the measures taken to give effect to the present Convention, and in preparing reports on its application”. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether it is planning to hold such consultations.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. The Committee notes that the detailed report requested for 2004, and once again for 2005, has not been provided. The Committee expresses its concern that the application of the Convention in Paraguay was examined by the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference in June 2003 and that subsequently no report has been received to follow up on the effect given to the recommendations made on that occasion. The Committee urges the Government to provide a report in 2006 containing the information requested in its observation and direct request of 2004, including its observations on the communication by the National Federation of Workers.

2. The Committee notes that Act No. 2822 issuing the Charter of Indigenous Peoples and Communities, was approved by the National Congress on 3 November 2005. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on whether, prior to the adoption of the Act, the Government held consultations as indicated in Article 6 of the Convention, according to which governments shall consult the peoples concerned through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly. Please also provide information on the manner in which these consultations were carried out. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the above Act gives legal expression to the Convention, and in particular to Articles 2 and 33 (coordinated and systematic policy), 6 (consultation), 7 (participation) and 15 (consultations and natural resources).

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 95th Session and to report in detail in 2006.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes the report provided by the Government and its annexes.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, according to the report provided by the Government in 2001, a census of the indigenous population will be carried out in 2002 and will be coordinated jointly with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI). It requests the Government to provide the results of the above census with its next report, including the distribution of the indigenous population by region on the corresponding municipalities with an indication, as previously requested by the Committee, of whether and in what manner self-identification as indigenous of the persons covered by the census was taken into account in determining the groups which fall within the scope of the Convention, as required by Article 1, paragraph 2. The Committee also notes that section 2 of the Bill governing the functioning of the entities responsible for national indigenous policy recognizes the principle of the self-identification of indigenous peoples.

3. Articles 2 and 33. Noting that the executive authority has submitted to the Legislature a Bill envisaging the replacement of the INDI, the Committee refers to its comments in its observation with regard to the application of Article 6 of the Convention prior to the adoption of any legislative or administrative measures which may directly affect the peoples concerned. It also recalls that, in accordance with Articles 2 and 33 of the Convention, governments have the responsibility for developing, with the participation of the peoples concerned, coordinated and systematic action to protect the rights of these peoples and, to this effect, have to ensure the existence of agencies or other appropriate mechanisms. In this respect, the Committee notes that, according to the communication made by the National Federation of Workers (CNT), received in August 2001, the new entity which would replace INDI would have fewer powers than those currently entrusted to the INDI. Furthermore, according to this Bill, certain of the INDI’s current powers would be decentralized and entrusted to non-specialized institutions. For example, the legal personality of indigenous communities is currently administered by the INDI while, under the above Bill, their legal personality would be the responsibility of the governments. The current areas of competence of the INDI with regard to access to land would be similarly affected. These changes would appear to weaken the INDI and would significantly reduce the possibilities for the Government to develop a coordinated and systematic policy within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee hopes that, in addition to consulting the peoples concerned prior to the adoption of legislative or administrative measures which may involve the replacement of the INDI, the Government will ensure that such modifications are compatible with Articles 2 and 33 of the Convention, and it requests the Government to provide information in its next report on developments on this situation.

4. Noting that according to the report, the INDI has had to make do with a precarious budget to carry out its projects, the Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Government shall ensure that the agencies and mechanisms referred to in this Article have the means necessary for the proper fulfilment of the functions assigned to them and it hopes that the Government will provide such means to the INDI, or to the institution which replaces it, and that it will keep the Committee informed on this subject in its next report.

5. Article 3, paragraph 1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the apparent discrimination in respect of wages and treatment based on the indigenous origin of workers in ranches in the interior of the country. In this connection, it requested the Government to provide detailed information on the wages paid to indigenous and non-indigenous workers in such ranches, and inquired as to whether the Ministry of Labour keeps a register of the wages paid to these workers. It notes that the report states that indigenous workers carry out occasional work, except for those based in certain ranches and in the peripheral areas of Mennonite communities, but that the Government does not reply to the Committee’s question. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the remuneration of indigenous and non-indigenous workers based in ranches or by Mennonite communities. It also notes that the report does not contain a reply to its request for information on the number of indigenous rural workers in the country declared to the administrative authorities under section 183 of the Labour Code, and it once again requests the Government to provide information on this matter in its next report.

6. Article 3, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that, according to the report, indigenous persons do not submit complaints to the Ministry of the Interior, but to the INDI. Noting that the report does not provide information on such complaints, as it had requested in its previous direct request, the Committee hopes that the Government will indicate in its next report the number of complaints lodged for example over the past two years, the reasons for such complaints, their follow-up and the action taken by the Government to give effect to this provision of the Convention. If the INDI is replaced by another entity, please provide this information on the latter entity.

7. Article 5. The Government’s report reiterates the legislative provisions which give effect to this Article, but does not provide information on its application in practice. It adds that the Directorate of Planning and Projects of the INDI participates in projects carried out by the State, but does not provide practical information on these projects. The Committee once again requests practical information on any study which may have been carried out, with the cooperation of the peoples concerned, to evaluate the socio-cultural, spiritual and environmental impact of current projects or of projects which are under preparation.

8. Article 6. The Committee refers to the comments concerning INDI made in its observation. With regard to its previous comments on the manner in which consultations are held with indigenous peoples, the Committee notes that, according to the report, consultations were held in relation to the Sustainable Development Project for the Paraguayan Chaco (PRODECHACO) in 1993, but that the participation level was low due to the fact that many indigenous persons do not understand Guaraní. The Government also stated that it does not have information on the project for food assistance to indigenous primary schools, in which the INDI did not participate, and that it assumes that this project is the responsibility of the Ministry of Culture. The Committee notes that the information contained in the report is confined to isolated facts and does not give a general picture of the manner in which consultations are held with the peoples concerned, but that this fundamental Article appears not to be applied in full. The Committee, recalling that the spirit of consultation and participation constitutes the cornerstone of Convention No. 169 on which all of its provisions are based, hopes that the Government will make efforts to apply this Article fully and systematically, will take the appropriate measures for its application in consultation with the peoples concerned and will keep the Committee informed of the efforts made and the progress achieved.

9. Article 7, paragraph 4. The Committee notes that, according to the report, the protection of the environment is carried out through the Environmental Superintendents and the Environmental Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. It adds that in the case of projects undertaken by public institutions, the corresponding studies are usually undertaken, and that with regard to private projects, the INDI is not aware that such studies are carried out in areas inhabited by indigenous communities. The Committee recalls that, in the same way as the requirement of consultation, the principle of participation is a fundamental precept of the Convention. As such, occasional participation, the carrying out of studies only in certain cases for State projects, and the failure to undertake them when the projects are private, does not give full effect to this Article of the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will make the necessary efforts, in consultation with the peoples concerned, to give effect to this Article in practice and that it will supply detailed information on the law and practice in this respect, on the measures which have been adopted or are envisaged and on the progress achieved.

10. Articles 8 to 11. Noting sections 432 to 437 of the Penal Code, determining the procedure for acts liable to punishment in relation to indigenous peoples, the Committee notes that when the sentence involves a period of detention of not more than two years, any legal representative of a community of the ethnic group of the convicted person may submit to the judge an alternative to the execution of the penalty, thereby complying more effectively with the aims of the Constitution with regard to the cultural identity of the convicted person under conditions more favourable to the latter (section 437). Please provide copies of judicial decisions issued under this section. Please also indicate whether, in the case of sentences of detention in which the favourable treatment envisaged in section 437 has not been sought or granted, and in cases of detention of more than two years, indigenous persons are also compelled to work.

11. Article 14. Land. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Paraguayan Chaco has a surface of 24,695,000 hectares and that the officially recognized indigenous lands amount to only 1.8 per cent of the area, while in terms of population, 60 per cent of the total population of the Chaco is indigenous and only has access to less than 2 per cent of the territory of the region. Recalling that by virtue of this Article of the Convention, steps shall be taken as necessary to identify the lands which the peoples concerned traditionally occupy, and to guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which it was proposed to give effect to this Article of the Convention, and particularly on the measures which have been taken or envisaged to safeguard the right of indigenous peoples to use lands not exclusively occupied by them. Noting that the Government has not replied to its request, the Committee urges the Government to supply this information in its next report. It hopes that the Government will indicate the peoples who use lands that are not exclusively occupied by them, and the measures that it is taking to safeguard their rights. For example, the Committee notes that, in a publication by the INDI annexed to the report, it is indicated that the Mbyá people, who are hunter gatherers, are in a territory that is not sufficient to ensure nutrition based on subsistence production and that only a few groups of the Mbyá hold title to land, despite the existence since 1982 of an Act which would permit the legalization of the land. It hopes that the Government will continue to supply information on this people and on others in similar situations.

12. The Committee notes, with reference to its previous comments, that the situation with regard to the lands of "Quebrachales de Puerto Colón", on which the Lengua and Sanapaná indigenous communities have claims, is progressing positively and that land transfers have continued. Please provide information on the progress achieved and, where appropriate, on any final agreement to resolve this claim. The Committee also notes that the report contains information on the land claims of the Fortuna, Laguna Pato, Santa Juanita, Riachito, Siete Horizontes, Aurora, Mbaracay and Totoviegosode indigenous communities, to which it referred in its previous comments. It notes that, while title has been granted to certain lands, the situation with regard to large areas of the lands in dispute remains to be resolved. For example, the Totoviegosode community was claiming 600,000 hectares of land and, according to the report, has recuperated a little more than 100,000 hectares. Please provide information on the stage reached by the procedures in the different cases in which indigenous communities are claiming lands, and particularly on the case of the 500,000 hectares which has still not been settled for the Totoviegosode community. Please also indicate whether the Government is considering, for example in this case in particular, the action envisaged in the Civil Code, namely acquisition and expropriation, and whether or not such action is appropriate to safeguard the right of indigenous communities to lands traditionally occupied by them, or through ownership or possession, where the latter are in dispute.

13. The Committee has also referred on various occasions to the increase in the so-called "invasions by landless rural workers" of indigenous lands and noted that the courts had ordered illegal settlers in Naranjito, Torreskue and Ka’ajovai to leave the area. The Committee had asked whether these decisions had been applied, but notes that the report does not contain precise information on this matter and hopes that the Government will indicate clearly whether effect has been given to these judicial decisions. It also referred to the lands of the Fortuna community, which had lost the title to their lands to the benefit of the Compañía Industrial Paraguaya S.A. due to an administrative error by the Rural Welfare Institute (IBR), and it had urged the Government to provide information very soon on this situation. It regrets to note that, according to the Government, it was not possible to safeguard the lands under dispute for the Fortuna indigenous community by reason of an overlapping of ownership titles and the fact that the lands had been invaded by landless rural workers, leading to the abandonment of these lands by the indigenous community. The Committee recalls that Article 14, paragraph 3, provides that the rights of ownership and possession of the peoples concerned shall be recognized, which means that the protection afforded by the Convention is not limited to land to which title is held, but covers all the lands which have been traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples. It therefore hopes that the Government will take all the necessary measures to ensure that the Fortuna community is able to recuperate its lands and that it will keep the Committee informed on this matter. If this were to prove impossible in practice, please indicate the other measures adopted to compensate this community for the loss of its lands.

14. In paragraph 15 of its previous direct request, the Committee referred to invasions of lands and requested information on the penalties applied, and on whether they are adequate to stop such occupations. According to the report, in the event of invasions of indigenous lands, those who have invaded them have been removed. The Committee recalls that Article 14, paragraph 2, which places the obligation upon governments to guarantee effective protection of the rights of ownership and possession of indigenous peoples, is supplemented by Article 18, under the terms of which adequate penalties shall be established for any unauthorized intrusion, and governments shall take measures to prevent such offences. It hopes that the Government will take all the measures within its power to put an end to these intrusions and that it will examine, in consultation with the indigenous peoples, the appropriate measures to preserve their land rights, including the imposition of dissuasive sanctions, and that it will keep the Committee informed of the progress achieved in relation to this problem.

15. Article 15. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether there have been cases of exploration or exploitation of natural resources in indigenous lands and the manner in which the indigenous peoples concerned have been consulted prior to any such exploration or exploitation. Please also indicate any agreements which have been concluded to ensure their participation in the benefits of any exploitation which may be undertaken.

16. Articles 15 and 16. The Committee had previously requested information on the transfers of indigenous communities displaced by the Itaipú and Yaciretá dams, any mechanisms in place for the payment of compensation for any loss or injury, the amount of compensation actually paid and the manner in which the peoples concerned were consulted before their transfer. It notes that the report contains information on the transfers of certain communities, but regrets that it does not reply to the other questions raised (mechanisms for the payment of compensation, the amount of compensation and consultations), nor does it provide detailed information which would allow the Committee to ascertain the manner in which these Articles of the Convention are applied.

17. Recalling that Article 16 places the obligation upon the State to provide relocated peoples with similar lands and compensation for any loss or injury, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the quality and quantity of the lands at the disposal of the peoples concerned before and after their transfer, the compensation paid and the consultations held under the terms of this Article. With regard to its request for information on the case of the expulsion of 25 indigenous families of the Enxet ethnic group from a ranch owned by the Bischoff family, the Committee notes that the indigenous families were holding negotiations with the owners of the ranch concerning the purchase of land. Please continue to provide information on this matter.

18. Article 17. Noting that, according to the report, in no case can lands be transferred outside the community, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any change in the legislation which may modify this situation.

19. Article 19. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 18 of Act No. 904/81, families are to be provided with 20 hectares in the eastern region and 100 in the western region, but that section 11 of the draft Bill to which the CNT refers in its communication, would reduce by half (10 and 50 hectares) the amount of land for each family. Considering that, as it indicated in its previous comment, the occupation of land by indigenous peoples is not proportionate to their numbers, the Committee expresses concern at this draft Bill which, if it were adopted, would result in a deterioration of the situation, with the result that indigenous families would have a decreasing amount of land, and it urges the Government to re-examine the draft Bill in consultation with indigenous peoples, as provided for in the Convention. At the same time, the Committee notes that according to the report, the lands adjudicated to indigenous families are in fact greater in area than the 100 hectares guaranteed in Act No. 904/81.

20. Article 20. The Committee notes the statement in the report that the legislation does not contain special measures as required by this Article and that formal equality exists between indigenous and non-indigenous workers. Please provide information in this regard, such as studies and statistics on the situation of indigenous workers in relation to the various aspects of employment referred to in Article 20, paragraph 2. The Committee also once again requests information on the number, frequency and results of labour inspections carried out in indigenous areas, with particular reference to the Mennonite settlements.

21. Articles 24 and 25. The Committee notes that in August 1999 the Ministry of Labour, the Social Insurance Institute and members of the Chortzitzer Komitee examined the possibility of establishing a social security system for indigenous persons living in the area around the Mennonite settlement in central Chaco, and that meetings with indigenous communities in the area were planned to discuss this project. Please provide information on the project and on any proposal to improve the health services for indigenous persons.

22. Articles 26 to 31. The Committee notes the list of schools in which bilingual education is provided and would be grateful if the Government would provide other information, such as the languages taught, the number of persons benefiting from such education, as well as materials indicating the activities carried out, such as textbooks and programmes in the various languages in which such education is provided. Please also supply, in so far as possible, statistics on the literacy rates and the educational levels attained by indigenous peoples in comparison with the rest of the population.

23. Article 32. The Committee notes that the Department of Amambay (on the border with Brazil) is inhabited by the Paï Tavyterá indigenous people (of the Guaraní linguistic family), which have links with related peoples in the State of Matto Grosso Do Sul. The Paraguayan Chaco is inhabited by the Toba people, who also reside in Argentina. The report indicates that in border regions the governments are predisposed to facilitate activities by indigenous peoples, particularly at the cultural level. Please provide information on the measures adopted by the Government to facilitate contacts between indigenous peoples across borders in the economic, social, cultural, spiritual and environmental fields.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

1. The Committee notes with regret that once again no report has been communicated following the detailed observation made in 2002 and the long discussion of this case that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2003, and in spite of the observation and direct request adopted by this Committee last year.

2. The Committee recalls that the available information indicates serious problems in the application of the Convention in Paraguay, as outlined in the previous comments, and that communication between the Office and the Government on this situation has been restricted. The Committee notes from the information communicated by the Government during the discussion in the Conference Committee that some measures are being taken, but that a great deal remains to be done.

3. The Committee once again recalls the allegations of forced labour being practised against indigenous peoples received from the World Confederation of Labour in 1997, and regrets that the Government also has not provided a report on the application of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). In this connection it notes, however, that work has been carried out in the country on forced labour, focusing on indigenous peoples, in the context of the action programme to follow up the global report on the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The Committee looks forward to receiving detailed information on this work, as well as on other aspects of the Convention’s application, in the Government’s next report.

4. The Committee is therefore repeating its previous direct request, and hopes to receive a detailed report from the Government for its next session.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2005.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes the report provided by the Government and its annexes.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, according to the report provided by the Government in 2001, a census of the indigenous population will be carried out in 2002 and will be coordinated jointly with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Childrens’ Fund (UNICEF), the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI). It requests the Government to provide the results of the above census with its next report, including the distribution of the indigenous population by region on the corresponding municipalities with an indication, as previously requested by the Committee, of whether and in what manner self-identification as indigenous of the persons covered by the census was taken into account in determining the groups which fall within the scope of the Convention, as required by Article 1, paragraph 2. The Committee also notes that section 2 of the Bill governing the functioning of the entities responsible for national indigenous policy recognizes the principle of the self-identification of indigenous peoples.

3. Articles 2 and 33. Noting that the executive authority has submitted to the Legislature a Bill envisaging the replacement of the INDI, the Committee refers to its comments in its observation with regard to the application of Article 6 of the Convention prior to the adoption of any legislative or administrative measures which may directly affect the peoples concerned. It also recalls that, in accordance with Articles 2 and 33 of the Convention, governments have the responsibility for developing, with the participation of the peoples concerned, coordinated and systematic action to protect the rights of these peoples and, to this effect, have to ensure the existence of agencies or other appropriate mechanisms. In this respect, the Committee notes that, according to the communication made by the National Federation of Workers (CNT), received in August 2001, the new entity which would replace INDI would have fewer powers than those currently entrusted to the INDI. Furthermore, according to this Bill, certain of the INDI’s current powers would be decentralized and entrusted to non-specialized institutions. For example, the legal personality of indigenous communities is currently administered by the INDI while, under the above Bill, their legal personality would be the responsibility of the governments. The current areas of competence of the INDI with regard to access to land would be similarly affected. These changes would appear to weaken the INDI and would significantly reduce the possibilities for the Government to develop a coordinated and systematic policy within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee hopes that, in addition to consulting the peoples concerned prior to the adoption of legislative or administrative measures which may involve the replacement of the INDI, the Government will ensure that such modifications are compatible with Articles 2 and 33 of the Convention, and it requests the Government to provide information in its next report on developments on this situation.

4. Noting that according to the report, the INDI has had to make do with a precarious budget to carry out its projects, the Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Government shall ensure that the agencies and mechanisms referred to in this Article have the means necessary for the proper fulfilment of the functions assigned to them and it hopes that the Government will provide such means to the INDI, or to the institution which replaces it, and that it will keep the Committee informed on this subject in its next report.

5. Article 3, paragraph 1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the apparent discrimination in respect of wages and treatment based on the indigenous origin of workers in ranches in the interior of the country. In this connection, it requested the Government to provide detailed information on the wages paid to indigenous and non-indigenous workers in such ranches, and inquired as to whether the Ministry of Labour keeps a register of the wages paid to these workers. It notes that the report states that indigenous workers carry out occasional work, except for those based in certain ranches and in the peripheral areas of Mennonite communities, but that the Government does not reply to the Committee’s question. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the remuneration of indigenous and non-indigenous workers based in ranches or by Mennonite communities. It also notes that the report does not contain a reply to its request for information on the number of indigenous rural workers in the country declared to the administrative authorities under section 183 of the Labour Code, and it once again requests the Government to provide information on this matter in its next report.

6. Article 3, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that, according to the report, indigenous persons do not submit complaints to the Ministry of the Interior, but to the INDI. Noting that the report does not provide information on such complaints, as it had requested in its previous direct request, the Committee hopes that the Government will indicate in its next report the number of complaints lodged for example over the past two years, the reasons for such complaints, their follow-up and the action taken by the Government to give effect to this provision of the Convention. If the INDI is replaced by another entity, please provide this information on the latter entity.

7. Article 5. The Government’s report reiterates the legislative provisions which give effect to this Article, but does not provide information on its application in practice. It adds that the Directorate of Planning and Projects of the INDI participates in projects carried out by the State, but does not provide practical information on these projects. The Committee once again requests practical information on any study which may have been carried out, with the cooperation of the peoples concerned, to evaluate the socio-cultural, spiritual and environmental impact of current projects or of projects which are under preparation.

8. Article 6. The Committee refers to the comments concerning INDI made in its observation. With regard to its previous comments on the manner in which consultations are held with indigenous peoples, the Committee notes that, according to the report, consultations were held in relation to the Sustainable Development Project for the Paraguayan Chaco (PRODECHACO) in 1993, but that the participation level was low due to the fact that many indigenous persons do not understand Guaraní. The Government also stated that it does not have information on the project for food assistance to indigenous primary schools, in which the INDI did not participate, and that it assumes that this project is the responsibility of the Ministry of Culture. The Committee notes that the information contained in the report is confined to isolated facts and does not give a general picture of the manner in which consultations are held with the peoples concerned, but that this fundamental Article appears not to be applied in full. The Committee, recalling that the spirit of consultation and participation constitutes the cornerstone of Convention No. 169 on which all of its provisions are based, hopes that the Government will make efforts to apply this Article fully and systematically, will take the appropriate measures for its application in consultation with the peoples concerned and will keep the Committee informed of the efforts made and the progress achieved.

9. Article 7, paragraph 4. The Committee notes that, according to the report, the protection of the environment is carried out through the Environmental Superintendance and the Environmental Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. It adds that in the case of projects undertaken by public institutions, the corresponding studies are usually undertaken, and that with regard to private projects, the INDI is not aware that such studies are carried out in areas inhabited by indigenous communities. The Committee recalls that, in the same way as the requirement of consultation, the principle of participation is a fundamental precept of the Convention. As such, occasional participation, the carrying out of studies only in certain cases for State projects, and the failure to undertake them when the projects are private, does not give full effect to this Article of the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will make the necessary efforts, in consultation with the peoples concerned, to give effect to this Article in practice and that it will supply detailed information on the law and practice in this respect, on the measures which have been adopted or are envisaged and on the progress achieved.

10. Articles 8 to 11. Noting sections 432 to 437 of the Penal Code, determining the procedure for acts liable to punishment in relation to indigenous peoples, the Committee notes that when the sentence involves a period of detention of not more than two years, any legal representative of a community of the ethnic group of the convicted person may submit to the judge an alternative to the execution of the penalty, thereby complying more effectively with the aims of the Constitution with regard to the cultural identity of the convicted person under conditions more favourable to the latter (section 437). Please provide copies of judicial decisions issued under this section. Please also indicate whether, in the case of sentences of detention in which the favourable treatment envisaged in section 437 has not been sought or granted, and in cases of detention of more than two years, indigenous persons are also compelled to work.

Land

11. Article 14. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Paraguayan Chaco has a surface of 24,695,000 hectares and that the officially recognized indigenous lands amount to only 1.8 per cent of the area, while in terms of population, 60 per cent of the total population of the Chaco is indigenous and only has access to less than 2 per cent of the territory of the region. Recalling that by virtue of this Article of the Convention, steps shall be taken as necessary to identify the lands which the peoples concerned traditionally occupy, and to guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which it was proposed to give effect to this Article of the Convention, and particularly on the measures which have been taken or envisaged to safeguard the right of indigenous peoples to use lands not exclusively occupied by them. Noting that the Government has not replied to its request, the Committee urges the Government to supply this information in its next report. It hopes that the Government will indicate the peoples who use lands that are not exclusively occupied by them, and the measures that it is taking to safeguard their rights. For example, the Committee notes that, in a publication by the INDI annexed to the report, it is indicated that the Mbyá people, who are hunter gatherers, are in a territory that is not sufficient to ensure nutrition based on subsistence production and that only a few groups of the Mbyá hold title to land, despite the existence since 1982 of an Act which would permit the legalization of the land. It hopes that the Government will continue to supply information on this people and on others in similar situations.

12. The Committee notes, with reference to its previous comments, that the situation with regard to the lands of "Quebrachales de Puerto Colón", on which the Lengua and Sanapaná indigenous communities have claims, is progressing positively and that land transfers have continued. Please provide information on the progress achieved and, where appropriate, on any final agreement to resolve this claim. The Committee also notes that the report contains information on the land claims of the Fortuna, Laguna Pato, Santa Juanita, Riachito, Siete Horizontes, Aurora, Mbaracay and Totoviegosode indigenous communities, to which it referred in its previous comments. It notes that, while title has been granted to certain lands, the situation with regard to large areas of the lands in dispute remains to be resolved. For example, the Totoviegosode community was claiming 600,000 hectares of land and, according to the report, has recuperated a little more than 100,000 hectares. Please provide information on the stage reached by the procedures in the different cases in which indigenous communities are claiming lands, and particularly on the case of the 500,000 hectares which has still not been settled for the Totoviegosode community. Please also indicate whether the Government is considering, for example in this case in particular, the action envisaged in the Civil Code, namely acquisition and expropriation, and whether or not such action is appropriate to safeguard the right of indigenous communities to lands traditionally occupied by them, or through ownership or possession, where the latter are in dispute.

13. The Committee has also referred on various occasions to the increase in the so-called "invasions by landless rural workers" of indigenous lands and noted that the courts had ordered illegal settlers in Naranjito, Torreskue and Ka’ajovai to leave the area. The Committee had asked whether these decisions had been applied, but notes that the report does not contain precise information on this matter and hopes that the Government will indicate clearly whether effect has been given to these judicial decisions. It also referred to the lands of the Fortuna community, which had lost the title to their lands to the benefit of the Compañía Industrial Paraguaya S.A. due to an administrative error by the Rural Welfare Institute (IBR), and it had urged the Government to provide information very soon on this situation. It regrets to note that, according to the Government, it was not possible to safeguard the lands under dispute for the Fortuna indigenous community by reason of an overlapping of ownership titles and the fact that the lands had been invaded by landless rural workers, leading to the abandonment of these lands by the indigenous community. The Committee recalls that Article 14, paragraph 3, provides that the rights of ownership and possession of the peoples concerned shall be recognized, which means that the protection afforded by the Convention is not limited to land to which title is held, but covers all the lands which have been traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples. It therefore hopes that the Government will take all the necessary measures to ensure that the Fortuna community is able to recuperate its lands and that it will keep the Committee informed on this matter. If this were to prove impossible in practice, please indicate the other measures adopted to compensate this community for the loss of its lands.

14. In paragraph 15 of its previous direct request, the Committee referred to invasions of lands and requested information on the penalties applied, and on whether they are adequate to stop such occupations. According to the report, in the event of invasions of indigenous lands, those who have invaded them have been removed. The Committee recalls that Article 14, paragraph 2, which places the obligation upon governments to guarantee effective protection of the rights of ownership and possession of indigenous peoples, is supplemented by Article 18, under the terms of which adequate penalties shall be established for any unauthorized intrusion, and governments shall take measures to prevent such offences. It hopes that the Government will take all the measures within its power to put an end to these intrusions and that it will examine, in consultation with the indigenous peoples, the appropriate measures to preserve their land rights, including the imposition of dissuasive sanctions, and that it will keep the Committee informed of the progress achieved in relation to this problem.

15. Article 15. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether there have been cases of exploration or exploitation of natural resources in indigenous lands and the manner in which the indigenous peoples concerned have been consulted prior to any such exploration or exploitation. Please also indicate any agreements which have been concluded to ensure their participation in the benefits of any exploitation which may be undertaken.

16. Articles 15 and 16. The Committee had previously requested information on the transfers of indigenous communities displaced by the Itaipú and Yaciretá dams, any mechanisms in place for the payment of compensation for any loss or injury, the amount of compensation actually paid and the manner in which the peoples concerned were consulted before their transfer. It notes that the report contains information on the transfers of certain communities, but regrets that it does not reply to the other questions raised (mechanisms for the payment of compensation, the amount of compensation and consultations), nor does it provide detailed information which would allow the Committee to ascertain the manner in which these Articles of the Convention are applied.

17. Recalling that Article 16 places the obligation upon the State to provide relocated peoples with similar lands and compensation for any loss or injury, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the quality and quantity of the lands at the disposal of the peoples concerned before and after their transfer, the compensation paid and the consultations held under the terms of this Article. With regard to its request for information on the case of the expulsion of 25 indigenous families of the Enxet ethnic group from a ranch owned by the Bischoff family, the Committee notes that the indigenous families were holding negotiations with the owners of the ranch concerning the purchase of land. Please continue to provide information on this matter.

18. Article 17. Noting that, according to the report, in no case can lands be transferred outside the community, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any change in the legislation which may modify this situation.

19. Article 19. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 18 of Act No. 904/81, families are to be provided with 20 hectares in the eastern region and 100 in the western region, but that section 11 of the draft Bill to which the CNT refers in its communication, would reduce by half (10 and 50 hectares) the amount of land for each family. Considering that, as it indicated in its previous comment, the occupation of land by indigenous peoples is not proportionate to their numbers, the Committee expresses concern at this draft Bill which, if it were adopted, would result in a deterioration of the situation, with the result that indigenous families would have a decreasing amount of land, and it urges the Government to re-examine the draft Bill in consultation with indigenous peoples, as provided for in the Convention. At the same time, the Committee notes that according to the report, the lands adjudicated to indigenous families are in fact greater in area than the 100 hectares guaranteed in Act No. 904/81.

20. Article 20. The Committee notes the statement in the report that the legislation does not contain special measures as required by this Article and that formal equality exists between indigenous and non-indigenous workers. Please provide information in this regard, such as studies and statistics on the situation of indigenous workers in relation to the various aspects of employment referred to in Article 20, paragraph 2. The Committee also once again requests information on the number, frequency and results of labour inspections carried out in indigenous areas, with particular reference to the Mennonite settlements.

21. Articles 24 and 25. The Committee notes that in August 1999 the Ministry of Labour, the Social Insurance Institute and members of the Chortzitzer Komitee examined the possibility of establishing a social security system for indigenous persons living in the area around the Mennonite settlement in central Chaco, and that meetings with indigenous communities in the area were planned to discuss this project. Please provide information on the project and on any proposal to improve the health services for indigenous persons.

22. Articles 26 to 31. The Committee notes the list of schools in which bilingual education is provided and would be grateful if the Government would provide other information, such as the languages taught, the number of persons benefiting from such education, as well as materials indicating the activities carried out, such as textbooks and programmes in the various languages in which such education is provided. Please also supply, in so far as possible, statistics on the literacy rates and the educational levels attained by indigenous peoples in comparison with the rest of the population.

23. Article 32. The Committee notes that the Department of Amambay (on the border with Brazil) is inhabited by the Paï Tavyterá indigenous people (of the Guaraní linguistic family), which have links with related peoples in the State of Matto Grosso Do Sul. The Paraguayan Chaco is inhabited by the Toba people, who also reside in Argentina. The report indicates that in border regions the governments are predisposed to facilitate activities by indigenous peoples, particularly at the cultural level. Please provide information on the measures adopted by the Government to facilitate contacts between indigenous peoples across borders in the economic, social, cultural, spiritual and environmental fields.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

1. The Committee notes with regret that no report has been communicated following the detailed observation made in 2002 and the long discussion of this case that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2003.

2. The Committee recalls that the available information indicates serious problems in the application of the Convention in Paraguay, as outlined in the previous comments, and that communication between the Office and the Government on this situation has been restricted. The Committee notes from the information communicated by the Government during the discussion in the Conference Committee that some measures are being taken, but that a great deal remains to be done.

3. The Committee once again draws attention to the allegations of forced labour being practised against indigenous peoples received from the World Confederation of Labour in 1997, and regrets that the Government also has not provided a report on the application of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29).

4. The Committee also notes that during the Conference Committee discussion the Government requested the Office’s technical assistance, which the Office had not yet found it possible to provide by the time of the Committee’s session; it hopes that efforts will continue in this respect, and will shortly show positive results.

5. The Committee is therefore repeating its previous direct request, and hopes to receive a detailed report from the Government for its next session.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2004.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

1. The Committee notes the report provided by the Government and its annexes.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, according to the report provided by the Government in 2001, a census of the indigenous population will be carried out in 2002 and will be coordinated jointly with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Childrens’ Fund (UNICEF), the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI). It requests the Government to provide the results of the above census with its next report, including the distribution of the indigenous population by region on the corresponding municipalities with an indication, as previously requested by the Committee, of whether and in what manner self-identification as indigenous of the persons covered by the census was taken into account in determining the groups which fall within the scope of the Convention, as required by Article 1, paragraph 2. The Committee also notes that section 2 of the Bill governing the functioning of the entities responsible for national indigenous policy recognizes the principle of the self-identification of indigenous peoples.

3. Articles 2 and 33. Noting that the executive authority has submitted to the Legislature a Bill envisaging the replacement of the INDI, the Committee refers to its comments in its observation with regard to the application of Article 6 of the Convention prior to the adoption of any legislative or administrative measures which may directly affect the peoples concerned. It also recalls that, in accordance with Articles 2 and 33 of the Convention, governments have the responsibility for developing, with the participation of the peoples concerned, coordinated and systematic action to protect the rights of these peoples and, to this effect, have to ensure the existence of agencies or other appropriate mechanisms. In this respect, the Committee notes that, according to the communication made by the National Federation of Workers (CNT), received in August 2001, the new entity which would replace INDI would have fewer powers than those currently entrusted to the INDI. Furthermore, according to this Bill, certain of the INDI’s current powers would be decentralized and entrusted to non-specialized institutions. For example, the legal personality of indigenous communities is currently administered by the INDI while, under the above Bill, their legal personality would be the responsibility of the governments. The current areas of competence of the INDI with regard to access to land would be similarly affected. These changes would appear to weaken the INDI and would significantly reduce the possibilities for the Government to develop a coordinated and systematic policy within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee hopes that, in addition to consulting the peoples concerned prior to the adoption of legislative or administrative measures which may involve the replacement of the INDI, the Government will ensure that such modifications are compatible with Articles 2 and 33 of the Convention, and it requests the Government to provide information in its next report on developments on this situation.

4. Noting that according to the report, the INDI has had to make do with a precarious budget to carry out its projects, the Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Government shall ensure that the agencies and mechanisms referred to in this Article have the means necessary for the proper fulfilment of the functions assigned to them and it hopes that the Government will provide such means to the INDI, or to the institution which replaces it, and that it will keep the Committee informed on this subject in its next report.

5. Article 3, paragraph 1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the apparent discrimination in respect of wages and treatment based on the indigenous origin of workers in ranches in the interior of the country. In this connection, it requested the Government to provide detailed information on the wages paid to indigenous and non-indigenous workers in such ranches, and inquired as to whether the Ministry of Labour keeps a register of the wages paid to these workers. It notes that the report states that indigenous workers carry out occasional work, except for those based in certain ranches and in the peripheral areas of Mennonite communities, but that the Government does not reply to the Committee’s question. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the remuneration of indigenous and non-indigenous workers based in ranches or by Mennonite communities. It also notes that the report does not contain a reply to its request for information on the number of indigenous rural workers in the country declared to the administrative authorities under section 183 of the Labour Code, and it once again requests the Government to provide information on this matter in its next report.

6. Article 3, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that, according to the report, indigenous persons do not submit complaints to the Ministry of the Interior, but to the INDI. Noting that the report does not provide information on such complaints, as it had requested in its previous direct request, the Committee hopes that the Government will indicate in its next report the number of complaints lodged for example over the past two years, the reasons for such complaints, their follow-up and the action taken by the Government to give effect to this provision of the Convention. If the INDI is replaced by another entity, please provide this information on the latter entity.

7. Article 5. The Government’s report reiterates the legislative provisions which give effect to this Article, but does not provide information on its application in practice. It adds that the Directorate of Planning and Projects of the INDI participates in projects carried out by the State, but does not provide practical information on these projects. The Committee once again requests practical information on any study which may have been carried out, with the cooperation of the peoples concerned, to evaluate the socio-cultural, spiritual and environmental impact of current projects or of projects which are under preparation.

8. Article 6. The Committee refers to the comments concerning INDI made in its observation. With regard to its previous comments on the manner in which consultations are held with indigenous peoples, the Committee notes that, according to the report, consultations were held in relation to the Sustainable Development Project for the Paraguayan Chaco (PRODECHACO) in 1993, but that the participation level was low due to the fact that many indigenous persons do not understand Guaraní. The Government also stated that it does not have information on the project for food assistance to indigenous primary schools, in which the INDI did not participate, and that it assumes that this project is the responsibility of the Ministry of Culture. The Committee notes that the information contained in the report is confined to isolated facts and does not give a general picture of the manner in which consultations are held with the peoples concerned, but that this fundamental Article appears not to be applied in full. The Committee, recalling that the spirit of consultation and participation constitutes the cornerstone of Convention No. 169 on which all of its provisions are based, hopes that the Government will make efforts to apply this Article fully and systematically, will take the appropriate measures for its application in consultation with the peoples concerned and will keep the Committee informed of the efforts made and the progress achieved.

9. Article 7, paragraph 4. The Committee notes that, according to the report, the protection of the environment is carried out through the Environmental Superintendance and the Environmental Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. It adds that in the case of projects undertaken by public institutions, the corresponding studies are usually undertaken, and that with regard to private projects, the INDI is not aware that such studies are carried out in areas inhabited by indigenous communities. The Committee recalls that, in the same way as the requirement of consultation, the principle of participation is a fundamental precept of the Convention. As such, occasional participation, the carrying out of studies only in certain cases for State projects, and the failure to undertake them when the projects are private, does not give full effect to this Article of the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will make the necessary efforts, in consultation with the peoples concerned, to give effect to this Article in practice and that it will supply detailed information on the law and practice in this respect, on the measures which have been adopted or are envisaged and on the progress achieved.

10. Articles 8 to 11. Noting sections 432 to 437 of the Penal Code, determining the procedure for acts liable to punishment in relation to indigenous peoples, the Committee notes that when the sentence involves a period of detention of not more than two years, any legal representative of a community of the ethnic group of the convicted person may submit to the judge an alternative to the execution of the penalty, thereby complying more effectively with the aims of the Constitution with regard to the cultural identity of the convicted person under conditions more favourable to the latter (section 437). Please provide copies of judicial decisions issued under this section. Please also indicate whether, in the case of sentences of detention in which the favourable treatment envisaged in section 437 has not been sought or granted, and in cases of detention of more than two years, indigenous persons are also compelled to work.

Land

11. Article 14. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Paraguayan Chaco has a surface of 24,695,000 hectares and that the officially recognized indigenous lands amount to only 1.8 per cent of the area, while in terms of population, 60 per cent of the total population of the Chaco is indigenous and only has access to less than 2 per cent of the territory of the region. Recalling that by virtue of this Article of the Convention, steps shall be taken as necessary to identify the lands which the peoples concerned traditionally occupy, and to guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which it was proposed to give effect to this Article of the Convention, and particularly on the measures which have been taken or envisaged to safeguard the right of indigenous peoples to use lands not exclusively occupied by them. Noting that the Government has not replied to its request, the Committee urges the Government to supply this information in its next report. It hopes that the Government will indicate the peoples who use lands that are not exclusively occupied by them, and the measures that it is taking to safeguard their rights. For example, the Committee notes that, in a publication by the INDI annexed to the report, it is indicated that the Mbyá people, who are hunter gatherers, are in a territory that is not sufficient to ensure nutrition based on subsistence production and that only a few groups of the Mbyá hold title to land, despite the existence since 1982 of an Act which would permit the legalization of the land. It hopes that the Government will continue to supply information on this people and on others in similar situations.

12. The Committee notes, with reference to its previous comments, that the situation with regard to the lands of "Quebrachales de Puerto Colón", on which the Lengua and Sanapaná indigenous communities have claims, is progressing positively and that land transfers have continued. Please provide information on the progress achieved and, where appropriate, on any final agreement to resolve this claim. The Committee also notes that the report contains information on the land claims of the Fortuna, Laguna Pato, Santa Juanita, Riachito, Siete Horizontes, Aurora, Mbaracay and Totoviegosode indigenous communities, to which it referred in its previous comments. It notes that, while title has been granted to certain lands, the situation with regard to large areas of the lands in dispute remains to be resolved. For example, the Totoviegosode community was claiming 600,000 hectares of land and, according to the report, has recuperated a little more than 100,000 hectares. Please provide information on the stage reached by the procedures in the different cases in which indigenous communities are claiming lands, and particularly on the case of the 500,000 hectares which has still not been settled for the Totoviegosode community. Please also indicate whether the Government is considering, for example in this case in particular, the action envisaged in the Civil Code, namely acquisition and expropriation, and whether or not such action is appropriate to safeguard the right of indigenous communities to lands traditionally occupied by them, or through ownership or possession, where the latter are in dispute.

13.  The Committee has also referred on various occasions to the increase in the so-called "invasions by landless rural workers" of indigenous lands and noted that the courts had ordered illegal settlers in Naranjito, Torreskue and Ka’ajovai to leave the area. The Committee had asked whether these decisions had been applied, but notes that the report does not contain precise information on this matter and hopes that the Government will indicate clearly whether effect has been given to these judicial decisions. It also referred to the lands of the Fortuna community, which had lost the title to their lands to the benefit of the Compañía Industrial Paraguaya S.A. due to an administrative error by the Rural Welfare Institute (IBR), and it had urged the Government to provide information very soon on this situation. It regrets to note that, according to the Government, it was not possible to safeguard the lands under dispute for the Fortuna indigenous community by reason of an overlapping of ownership titles and the fact that the lands had been invaded by landless rural workers, leading to the abandonment of these lands by the indigenous community. The Committee recalls that Article 14, paragraph 3, provides that the rights of ownership and possession of the peoples concerned shall be recognized, which means that the protection afforded by the Convention is not limited to land to which title is held, but covers all the lands which have been traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples. It therefore hopes that the Government will take all the necessary measures to ensure that the Fortuna community is able to recuperate its lands and that it will keep the Committee informed on this matter. If this were to prove impossible in practice, please indicate the other measures adopted to compensate this community for the loss of its lands.

14. In paragraph 15 of its previous direct request, the Committee referred to invasions of lands and requested information on the penalties applied, and on whether they are adequate to stop such occupations. According to the report, in the event of invasions of indigenous lands, those who have invaded them have been removed. The Committee recalls that Article 14, paragraph 2, which places the obligation upon governments to guarantee effective protection of the rights of ownership and possession of indigenous peoples, is supplemented by Article 18, under the terms of which adequate penalties shall be established for any unauthorized intrusion, and governments shall take measures to prevent such offences. It hopes that the Government will take all the measures within its power to put an end to these intrusions and that it will examine, in consultation with the indigenous peoples, the appropriate measures to preserve their land rights, including the imposition of dissuasive sanctions, and that it will keep the Committee informed of the progress achieved in relation to this problem.

15. Article 15. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether there have been cases of exploration or exploitation of natural resources in indigenous lands and the manner in which the indigenous peoples concerned have been consulted prior to any such exploration or exploitation. Please also indicate any agreements which have been concluded to ensure their participation in the benefits of any exploitation which may be undertaken.

Articles 15 and 16. The Committee had previously requested information on the transfers of indigenous communities displaced by the Itaipú and Yaciretá dams, any mechanisms in place for the payment of compensation for any loss or injury, the amount of compensation actually paid and the manner in which the peoples concerned were consulted before their transfer. It notes that the report contains information on the transfers of certain communities, but regrets that it does not reply to the other questions raised (mechanisms for the payment of compensation, the amount of compensation and consultations), nor does it provide detailed information which would allow the Committee to ascertain the manner in which these Articles of the Convention are applied.

17. Recalling that Article 16 places the obligation upon the State to provide relocated peoples with similar lands and compensation for any loss or injury, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the quality and quantity of the lands at the disposal of the peoples concerned before and after their transfer, the compensation paid and the consultations held under the terms of this Article. With regard to its request for information on the case of the expulsion of 25 indigenous families of the Enxet ethnic group from a ranch owned by the Bischoff family, the Committee notes that the indigenous families were holding negotiations with the owners of the ranch concerning the purchase of land. Please continue to provide information on this matter.

18. Article 17. Noting that, according to the report, in no case can lands be transferred outside the community, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any change in the legislation which may modify this situation.

19. Article 19. The Committee notes that, under the terms of section 18 of Act No. 904/81, families are to be provided with 20 hectares in the eastern region and 100 in the western region, but that section 11 of the draft Bill to which the CNT refers in its communication, would reduce by half (10 and 50 hectares) the amount of land for each family. Considering that, as it indicated in its previous comment, the occupation of land by indigenous peoples is not proportionate to their numbers, the Committee expresses concern at this draft Bill which, if it were adopted, would result in a deterioration of the situation, with the result that indigenous families would have a decreasing amount of land, and it urges the Government to re-examine the draft Bill in consultation with indigenous peoples, as provided for in the Convention. At the same time, the Committee notes that according to the report, the lands adjudicated to indigenous families are in fact greater in area than the 100 hectares guaranteed in Act No. 904/81.

20. Article 20. The Committee notes the statement in the report that the legislation does not contain special measures as required by this Article and that formal equality exists between indigenous and non-indigenous workers. Please provide information in this regard, such as studies and statistics on the situation of indigenous workers in relation to the various aspects of employment referred to in Article 20, paragraph 2. The Committee also once again requests information on the number, frequency and results of labour inspections carried out in indigenous areas, with particular reference to the Mennonite settlements.

21. Articles 24 and 25. The Committee notes that in August 1999 the Ministry of Labour, the Social Insurance Institute and members of the Chortzitzer Komitee examined the possibility of establishing a social security system for indigenous persons living in the area around the Mennonite settlement in central Chaco, and that meetings with indigenous communities in the area were planned to discuss this project. Please provide information on the project and on any proposal to improve the health services for indigenous persons.

22. Articles 26 to 31. The Committee notes the list of schools in which bilingual education is provided and would be grateful if the Government would provide other information, such as the languages taught, the number of persons benefiting from such education, as well as materials indicating the activities carried out, such as textbooks and programmes in the various languages in which such education is provided. Please also supply, in so far as possible, statistics on the literacy rates and the educational levels attained by indigenous peoples in comparison with the rest of the population.

23. Article 32. The Committee notes that the Department of Amambay (on the border with Brazil) is inhabited by the Paï Tavyterá indigenous people (of the Guaraní linguistic family), which have links with related peoples in the State of Matto Grosso Do Sul. The Paraguayan Chaco is inhabited by the Toba people, who also reside in Argentina. The report indicates that in border regions the governments are predisposed to facilitate activities by indigenous peoples, particularly at the cultural level. Please provide information on the measures adopted by the Government to facilitate contacts between indigenous peoples across borders in the economic, social, cultural, spiritual and environmental fields.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

1. The Committee notes the Government’s report received in 2001 and the attached documentation. It notes that the report does not provide information on all the questions raised by the Committee in its previous comments and it requests it to supply detailed information in its next report on the situation in practice. The Committee urges the Government to reply in particular to the points relating to land rights raised in a request that is being addressed directly to it.

2. The Committee also notes the communication from the National Federation of Workers (CNT), in the preparation of which the indigenous organization Tierraviva for Indigenous Peoples in the Chaco participated, and which was received on 1 August 2001 and forwarded to the Government on 27 August 2001. The Committee regrets to note that the Government has not supplied comments on this communication.

3. According to the CNT, on 30 April 2001 the executive authority submitted to the Congress of the Nation, a bill governing the functioning of entities responsible for the national indigenous policy, which would repeal the Indigenous Communities Charter, adopted by Act No. 904/81, and consequently it would abolish the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI). The CNT states that the above Bill constitutes a serious retrogression in the protection of the right of indigenous peoples and alleges the non-compliance by the Government with its obligation to consult indigenous peoples prior to initiating the legislative process for the formulation of the Bill, in violation of Article 6 of the Convention. The CNT attaches to its communication, among other documents, the statement by the Coordinator of Indigenous Leaders of the Bajo Chaco and the Indigenous Network, presented to Parliament and the executive authority. This statement rejects the bill referred to above and demands the application of Article 6 of the Convention so that the State and the organizations of indigenous peoples can work on a bill which benefits the peoples concerned, and does not violate their rights.

4. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the spirit of consultation and participation constitutes the cornerstone of Convention No. 169 on which all of its provisions are based. Article 6, paragraph 1, sets out the obligation of states which ratify the Convention to "consult the peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, whenever consideration is being given to legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly". The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will indicate the manner in which the peoples concerned were consulted before proceeding to any amendment of Act No. 904 and before adopting any legislative or administrative measures which may affect them directly. It also hopes that, when holding such consultations the Government will take into account the fact that the Convention requires them to be held through appropriate procedures and the representative institutions of the peoples concerned. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted in this respect and on their outcome. It also requests it to provide a copy of any new legislation adopted, as well as of any draft legislation prepared following consultations with the peoples concerned.

5. The Committee also refers to a communication sent by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) in October 1997 under Convention No. 29, indicating that the working conditions of indigenous persons in ranches suggest an extensive practice of forced labour for the repayment of debts contracted in ranch shops for the purchase of basic foodstuffs and other products of primary necessity at inflated prices, and that wages are not paid or are paid only at the end of the contract, meaning that the workers have to become indebted to survive, and are also ill-treated. The Government states that the Ministry of Justice and Labour sent out communications in May 2000 to various bodies of the State to inform them of the communication and the comments made by the Committee and to indicate the importance that the Government attaches to the issue of forced labour. The Ministry of Labour proposed in August 2000 that inspections be undertaken in ranches in the Chaco and the INDI placed at the disposal of the Ministry persons with experience of the subject. The Committee nevertheless notes that the Government’s report does not provide information on the effect given to this proposal. It hopes that in its next report the Government will be in a position to indicate whether inspections were actually undertaken, their results and, where appropriate, the measures adopted or proposed and the progress achieved.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which reads as follows:

1.  The Committee notes the Government’s report covering the period 1 June to 1 September 1998. Shortly before the beginning of its session, the Committee received a new report with many annexes covering the period 1 June 1994 to 31 May 1998, which it will examine closely next year, together with the Government’s reply to the comments made in the present session and any additional comments received. The Committee requests the Government to provide specific information on the matters raised below concerning the application of the following Articles of the Convention.

2.  Article 1 of the Convention.  The Committee had noted the Government’s indication in its first report that the national census of 1992 was not very reliable with regard to data on indigenous peoples and that it had not been possible to obtain the necessary international resources to undertake an exclusive census of indigenous peoples. The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government that the Office of the Attorney General is carrying out a census of the indigenous population by municipality. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with the results of this census and to indicate whether the self-identification as being indigenous by the persons covered by the census was taken into consideration in determining the ethnic origin of the persons concerned.

3.  Article 2.  The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the machinery for collaboration and cooperation between the institutions of the various governmental, non-governmental and religious bodies which are active in indigenous affairs, including the methods adopted by the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) to follow up the reports transmitted to it by private entities on their activities in indigenous communities. It also requests the Government to indicate whether there is in practice effective participation by the peoples concerned in coordinated and systematic action to protect their rights.

4.  Article 3, paragraph 1.  The Committee notes the various information received on the apparent discrimination in wages and treatment based on the indigenous origin of workers in ranches in the country. The Committee urges the Government to provide detailed information on the wages paid to indigenous and non-indigenous workers in ranches in the country, and to indicate any differences in the minimum wage paid to both categories of workers and whether the Ministry of Justice and Labour keeps a register of the wages paid to these workers. Furthermore, it requests information on the application of section 183 of the Labour Code requiring rural employers, on each occasion that they recruit rural workers, to inform the Administrative Labour Authority within 30 days. It also requests the Government to provide information on the number of indigenous rural workers in the country.

5.  Article 3, paragraph 2.  The Committee notes that the Department for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights of the Ministry of the Interior coordinates its activities with governmental, national and international organizations and once again requests the Government to provide information, in so far as it is related to the application of this provision of the Convention, on the number of complaints received and their follow up, and on the activities which will be or have been carried out.

6.  Article 5(a) and (b).  The Committee notes that the Government has not provided any information on the application of this Article. It urges the Government to provide information on the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to ensure recognition, protection and respect of the social, cultural, religious and spiritual values and practices of these peoples and their institutions.

7.  In its previous direct request, the Committee noted that in 1992 the Directorate of Planning, Projects and Development of the INDI had been established to implement a development planning policy for indigenous communities based on the proposals made by those communities. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any study which may have been carried out, with the cooperation of the peoples concerned, to evaluate the socio-cultural, spiritual and environmental impact of current projects or of projects which are under preparation.

8.  Article 6.  The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that the INDI is holding consultations with indigenous communities which may be affected by the implementation of a project. Nevertheless, the Government does not provide specific information on the application of this Article. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which consultations are held with indigenous peoples whenever measures are adopted which may affect them. It also requests it to indicate whether consultations were held on the implementation of the Paraguayan Chaco Sustainable Development Project (PRODECHACO).

9.  The Committee noted the implementation of the project for food assistance to indigenous primary schools in certain departments in the eastern region. In this respect the Committee once again requests information on the progress made and the current situation of the above project.

10.  Article 7, paragraph 4.  The Committee requests the Government to provide information on whether environmental studies are undertaken when development projects are carried out in indigenous areas.

11.  Articles 9, paragraph 2, and 10, paragraph 2.  The Committee notes that, under section 5 of Act No. 904, indigenous communities may apply their customary methods to regulate internal matters in all cases which are not incompatible with the principles of public order. It requests the Government to provide information on whether the customs of indigenous peoples are taken into account when courts are imposing penalties on them. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether, in cases involving indigenous persons, methods of punishment other than confinement in prison are used.

12.  Articles 9, paragraph 2, and 11.  The Committee notes that section 40 of the Penal Code provides that convicted persons are required to perform the work assigned to them, thereby facilitating their employment situation in their future life outside prison. Taking this information into account, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether, under this section and taking into account the provisions of Article 9, paragraph 2, indigenous persons who are sentenced to imprisonment are also obliged to work.

13.  Article 14, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.  With reference to its observation, the Committee notes the Government’s statements in August 1999 to the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights of the United Nations Human Rights Committee to the effect that it is becoming difficult to grant enormous extensions of land to indigenous persons pursuant to their claims so that they may continue in their natural state living in reserves and surviving exclusively from hunting, fishing and the collection of forest fruits, without incorporating the new technologies for the rational use of land and for sustained and sustainable development. The Committee notes that Paraguayan Chaco has a surface of 24,695,000 hectares, that the officially recognized indigenous lands amount to only 1.8 per cent (445,305 hectares) of the above area and that, in terms of population, 60 per cent of the total population of Chaco is indigenous and only has access to less than 2 per cent of the territory of the region.

14.  The Committee reminds the Government that under this Article of the Convention steps shall be taken as necessary to identify the lands which the peoples concerned traditionally occupy and to guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession. It requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it is proposed to give effect to this Article of the Convention, and particularly on the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to safeguard the right of indigenous peoples to use lands not exclusively occupied by them. It also requests the Government to provide information on the procedures which exist in the national legal system to resolve land claims by the peoples concerned, as provided for in Article 14.

15.  The Committee also recalls that, in an earlier report on Convention No. 107, the Government indicated that in 1991 there had been a pronounced increase in invasions of indigenous lands by landless rural workers and that illegal settlers in Naranjito, Torreskue and Ka’ajovai had been ordered by the courts to leave the area. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on these court orders and the effect given to them, including any measure taken by the Institute of Rural Welfare to restore the lands of the "Fortuna" community, which had lost the title to its lands to the Industrial Paraguayan Company SA, due to an administrative error made by the Institute. The Committee once again requests this information and urges the Government to report in the near future on developments in this situation.

16.  The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the processes respecting the land claims of the indigenous communities in Laguna Pato, Santa Juanita, Riachito (12,000 hectares), the Siete Horizontes Indigenous Community (18,000 hectares), the Aurora Indigenous Community (20,000 hectares), the Mbaracay Indigenous Community (1,000 hectares), and the Totoviegosode Indigenous Community (600,000 hectares), which are pending before the Indigenous Defence Department of the Office of the Attorney General.

17.  Article 15.  In its previous direct request, the Committee noted that major hydroelectric projects which might affect indigenous communities had not been developed and it hoped that the Government would provide information on the transfer of indigenous communities displaced by the Itaipú and Yacyretá dams, any mechanisms in place for paying compensatory damages for any loss or injury and the amount of compensation actually received by the affected communities. Please also provide information indicating the manner in which the peoples concerned were consulted before their transfer. The Committee is once again awaiting this information. The Committee recalls that it has been requesting information on the application of this Article in practice since the ratification of the Convention.

18.  Article 16.  The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of this Article of the Convention in practice, with an indication of the manner in which the peoples concerned are consulted. It also requests it to provide information on the case of the expulsion of 25 indigenous families of the Enxet ethnic group from a ranch owned by the Bischoff family for allegedly having reclaimed their rights to the land through the courts.

19.  Article 17.  The Committee notes that both article 64 of the Constitution and section 17 of Act No. 904 provide that indigenous lands shall not be seized, divided, transferred, prescribed, used as a guarantee for any credit or contractual obligation, nor shall they be leased, and they shall be exempt from taxation. Taking these circumstances into consideration, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the type of consultations held and the consultation procedures which exist, if any, when indigenous communities consider transferring their lands outside their community.

20.  Article 18.  Taking into account the information on the conflicts of interests between "landless" rural workers and indigenous communities, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to settle these disputes in cases where indigenous lands are invaded, the penalties applicable to persons who invade indigenous lands, with practical examples, if any, of cases in which such persons have been removed and damages have been paid to an indigenous community. It also requests the Government to indicate the penalties imposed on persons invading indigenous lands, if such penalties exist, and whether they are adequate to impede invasions, as well as on any pending claim to indigenous lands.

21.  Article 19.  The Committee notes, under section 22 of Act No. 904, for the purposes of the settlement of indigenous communities on public lands, additional land may be granted to meet their economic needs and their need to expand, but that the section respecting agrarian reform in the Constitution does not contain an explicit reference to indigenous peoples. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on whether agrarian reform plans actually secure to indigenous peoples treatment equivalent to that accorded to other sectors of the population, particularly in regions such as Chaco, where the ownership of land by indigenous peoples is not proportional to their numbers.

22.  Article 20(3)(d).  The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether any legislation, draft legislation or other measures exist to protect the members of these peoples in particular against sexual harassment in employment.

23.  In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the extent to which indigenous communities are included in the scope of the Labour Code of Paraguay (Act No. 213 of 1993), with particular reference to any special measures designed to facilitate their access to equal opportunities for recruitment and employment. Please also include information on the number and frequency of labour inspections in indigenous areas, with particular reference to the Mennonite settlements. The Committee is once again awaiting the provision of this information.

24.  Articles 21, 22 and 23.  The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which these Articles are applied in practice, and particularly on how it is intended to promote traditional activities related to the subsistence economy. It also requests the Government to indicate the number of credits granted to indigenous communities for the development of handicrafts and rural and community-based industries.

25.  Articles 24 and 25. Social security and health.  The Committee notes the Government’s statements to the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights of the United National Human Rights Commission, in August 1999, indicating that assistance will be provided to the inhabitants of Paraguayan Chaco, including indigenous peoples, in the fields of health, housing, education and living standards, to permit them to live a dignified life, through the Paraguayan Chaco Sustainable Development Project (PRODECHACO), concluded with the European Union in 1995. It requests the Government to provide information on current plans, if any, to improve health services in the areas inhabited by indigenous peoples, including preventive care. It also requests information on the manner in which the PRODECHACO project has benefited indigenous peoples in the region, and particularly indigenous workers on ranches.

26.  Article 27.  The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures adopted to facilitate the access of indigenous peoples to educational institutions, based on their special needs, which incorporate their histories, their knowledge, their value systems and their culture.

27.  Article 29.  The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to facilitate the access of indigenous children to educational institutions with a view to encouraging their full participation in their own community and in the national community.

28.  Articles 30 and 31.  The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its first report in May 1996 that a process of educational reform was being undertaken in the country. It also indicated that the INDI had supported the proposals made by indigenous representatives to the Educational Reform Commission. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the practical outcome of the proposals made by indigenous representatives to the Educational Reform Commission. Furthermore, it requests information on whether any programmes exist to make known to indigenous peoples their rights and duties in regard to labour, economic opportunities, education and health matters, social welfare and their rights deriving from the Convention.

29.  The Committee also repeats its earlier request to the Government to provide information on the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to eliminate prejudices which may exist against indigenous peoples by raising awareness and increasing respect for indigenous cultures and traditions among non-indigenous persons who are in most direct contact with the peoples concerned, including government authorities.

30.  Article 32.  The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any type of agreement or dialogue exists with neighbouring countries to facilitate contacts and cooperation with the indigenous peoples of Paraguay.

31.  Article 33, paragraph 2(b).  The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any legislative measure which is currently being taken to align the legislation with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Furthermore, it requests information on any plans to amend the Indigenous Communities’ Charter.

  32.  Part VIII of the report form.  The Committee wishes to recall that this Part of the report form on the Convention indicates that, although such action is not indispensable, the Government may find it helpful to consult organizations of indigenous or tribal peoples in the country, through their traditional institutions where they exist, on the measures taken to give effect to the present Convention and in preparing reports on its application. Since the above information has not been provided by the Government in either of its two reports, please indicate whether such consultations have been held in practice.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which reads as follows:

1.  The Committee notes that the report covering the period from 1 June to 1 September 1998 contains information of a general natsure but does not respond in full to the matters raised previously in various requests addressed directly to the Government. Shortly before the beginning of its session, the Committee received a new report with numerous annexes covering the period 1 June 1994 to 31 May 1998, which it will examine carefully next year, together with the Government’s response to the comments made at its present session and any additional comments which are made. The Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the following points:

2.  Articles 9, paragraph 2, and 11, of the Convention.  The Committee notes the information provided by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) in October 1997, under Convention No. 29, indicating that the working conditions of indigenous persons in ranches suggest an extensive practice of forced labour for the repayment of debts contracted in ranch shops in the purchase of basic foodstuffs and other products of primary necessity at exaggerated prices. This circumstance, combined with the allegation that wages are not paid or are paid at the end of the contract, would signify that in order to survive the workers would have to become indebted and are obliged to work to repay their debt. The information also refers to the ill-treatment suffered by indigenous workers in ranches. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided its comments on these allegations. The Committee therefore urges the Government to provide information on the comments transmitted by the WCL.

3.  Articles 13 to 19. Land.  The Committee notes that religious missions are delivering definitive title to property to certain indigenous communities and that the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) had considered that the claims of the Lengua and Sanapaná indigenous communities to 40,000 hectares in "Quebrachales Puerto Colón" had been practically settled. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which the transfer of land from the missions to the indigenous communities is proceeding, and on whether the indigenous communities are required to pay compensation and which indigenous communities have benefited from these measures. Please also provide information in the next report on developments in the situation, including the activities of religious missions in this context, whether other non-governmental bodies have pursued such practices in the country and details of the different forms of land tenure prevailing in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples. Please also include information on the finalization of the agreement to resolve the case of indigenous communities in the area known as "Quebrachales Puerto Colón".

4.  Article 20. Recruitment and conditions of employment.  The Committee has received information on the working conditions of indigenous rural workers in Chaco, according to which their wages are only paid at the end of the year; it is alleged that numerous deductions are made for items including food, which in most cases is said to be over-priced. Moreover, discrimination has been alleged in remuneration, where the minimum wage for indigenous workers may be far lower than the level established by the law and non-indigenous workers earn more for the same type of work. Taking this information into consideration, and even though the Government has not ratified the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129), the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the possibility of establishing adequate labour inspection services in areas where there is a high concentration of indigenous workers in order to monitor the working conditions of indigenous peoples, as envisaged in this Article of the Convention.

5.  The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on other matters.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

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

1. The Committee notes the Government's report covering the period 1 June to 1 September 1998. Shortly before the beginning of its session, the Committee received a new report with many annexes covering the period 1 June 1994 to 31 May 1998, which it will examine closely next year, together with the Government's reply to the comments made in the present session and any additional comments received. The Committee requests the Government to provide specific information on the matters raised below concerning the application of the following Articles of the Convention.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee had noted the Government's indication in its first report that the national census of 1992 was not very reliable with regard to data on indigenous peoples and that it had not been possible to obtain the necessary international resources to undertake an exclusive census of indigenous peoples. The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government that the Office of the Attorney General is carrying out a census of the indigenous population by municipality. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with the results of this census and to indicate whether the self-identification as being indigenous by the persons covered by the census was taken into consideration in determining the ethnic origin of the persons concerned.

3. Article 2. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the machinery for collaboration and cooperation between the institutions of the various governmental, non-governmental and religious bodies which are active in indigenous affairs, including the methods adopted by the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) to follow up the reports transmitted to it by private entities on their activities in indigenous communities. It also requests the Government to indicate whether there is in practice effective participation by the peoples concerned in coordinated and systematic action to protect their rights.

4. Article 3, paragraph 1. The Committee notes the various information received on the apparent discrimination in wages and treatment based on the indigenous origin of workers in ranches in the country. The Committee urges the Government to provide detailed information on the wages paid to indigenous and non-indigenous workers in ranches in the country, and to indicate any differences in the minimum wage paid to both categories of workers and whether the Ministry of Justice and Labour keeps a register of the wages paid to these workers. Furthermore, it requests information on the application of section 183 of the Labour Code requiring rural employers, on each occasion that they recruit rural workers, to inform the Administrative Labour Authority within 30 days. It also requests the Government to provide information on the number of indigenous rural workers in the country.

5. Article 3, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that the Department for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights of the Ministry of the Interior coordinates its activities with governmental, national and international organizations and once again requests the Government to provide information, in so far as it is related to the application of this provision of the Convention, on the number of complaints received and their follow up, and on the activities which will be or have been carried out.

6. Article 5(a) and (b). The Committee notes that the Government has not provided any information on the application of this Article. It urges the Government to provide information on the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to ensure recognition, protection and respect of the social, cultural, religious and spiritual values and practices of these peoples and their institutions.

7. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted that in 1992 the Directorate of Planning, Projects and Development of the INDI had been established to implement a development planning policy for indigenous communities based on the proposals made by those communities. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any study which may have been carried out, with the cooperation of the peoples concerned, to evaluate the socio-cultural, spiritual and environmental impact of current projects or of projects which are under preparation.

8. Article 6. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that the INDI is holding consultations with indigenous communities which may be affected by the implementation of a project. Nevertheless, the Government does not provide specific information on the application of this Article. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which consultations are held with indigenous peoples whenever measures are adopted which may affect them. It also requests it to indicate whether consultations were held on the implementation of the Paraguayan Chaco Sustainable Development Project (PRODECHACO).

9. The Committee noted the implementation of the project for food assistance to indigenous primary schools in certain departments in the eastern region. In this respect the Committee once again requests information on the progress made and the current situation of the above project.

10. Article 7, paragraph 4. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on whether environmental studies are undertaken when development projects are carried out in indigenous areas.

11. Articles 9, paragraph 2, and 10, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that, under section 5 of Act No. 904, indigenous communities may apply their customary methods to regulate internal matters in all cases which are not incompatible with the principles of public order. It requests the Government to provide information on whether the customs of indigenous peoples are taken into account when courts are imposing penalties on them. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether, in cases involving indigenous persons, methods of punishment other than confinement in prison are used.

12. Articles 9, paragraph 2, and 11. The Committee notes that section 40 of the Penal Code provides that convicted persons are required to perform the work assigned to them, thereby facilitating their employment situation in their future life outside prison. Taking this information into account, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether, under this section and taking into account the provisions of Article 9, paragraph 2, indigenous persons who are sentenced to imprisonment are also obliged to work.

13. Article 14, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. With reference to its observation, the Committee notes the Government's statements in August 1999 to the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights of the United Nations Human Rights Committee to the effect that it is becoming difficult to grant enormous extensions of land to indigenous persons pursuant to their claims so that they may continue in their natural state living in reserves and surviving exclusively from hunting, fishing and the collection of forest fruits, without incorporating the new technologies for the rational use of land and for sustained and sustainable development. The Committee notes that Paraguayan Chaco has a surface of 24,695,000 hectares, that the officially recognized indigenous lands amount to only 1.8 per cent (445,305 hectares) of the above area and that, in terms of population, 60 per cent of the total population of Chaco is indigenous and only has access to less than 2 per cent of the territory of the region.

14. The Committee reminds the Government that under this Article of the Convention steps shall be taken as necessary to identify the lands which the peoples concerned traditionally occupy and to guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and possession. It requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it is proposed to give effect to this Article of the Convention, and particularly on the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to safeguard the right of indigenous peoples to use lands not exclusively occupied by them. It also requests the Government to provide information on the procedures which exist in the national legal system to resolve land claims by the peoples concerned, as provided for in Article 14.

15. The Committee also recalls that, in an earlier report on Convention No. 107, the Government indicated that in 1991 there had been a pronounced increase in invasions of indigenous lands by landless rural workers and that illegal settlers in Naranjito, Torreskue and Ka'ajovai had been ordered by the courts to leave the area. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on these court orders and the effect given to them, including any measure taken by the Institute of Rural Welfare to restore the lands of the "Fortuna" community, which had lost the title to its lands to the Industrial Paraguayan Company SA, due to an administrative error made by the Institute. The Committee once again requests this information and urges the Government to report in the near future on developments in this situation.

16. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the processes respecting the land claims of the indigenous communities in Laguna Pato, Santa Juanita, Riachito (12,000 hectares), the Siete Horizontes Indigenous Community (18,000 hectares), the Aurora Indigenous Community (20,000 hectares), the Mbaracay Indigenous Community (1,000 hectares), and the Totoviegosode Indigenous Community (600,000 hectares), which are pending before the Indigenous Defence Department of the Office of the Attorney General.

17. Article 15. In its previous direct request, the Committee noted that major hydroelectric projects which might affect indigenous communities had not been developed and it hoped that the Government would provide information on the transfer of indigenous communities displaced by the Itaipú and Yacyretá dams, any mechanisms in place for paying compensatory damages for any loss or injury and the amount of compensation actually received by the affected communities. Please also provide information indicating the manner in which the peoples concerned were consulted before their transfer. The Committee is once again awaiting this information. The Committee recalls that it has been requesting information on the application of this Article in practice since the ratification of the Convention.

18. Article 16. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of this Article of the Convention in practice, with an indication of the manner in which the peoples concerned are consulted. It also requests it to provide information on the case of the expulsion of 25 indigenous families of the Enxet ethnic group from a ranch owned by the Bischoff family for allegedly having reclaimed their rights to the land through the courts.

19. Article 17. The Committee notes that both article 64 of the Constitution and section 17 of Act No. 904 provide that indigenous lands shall not be seized, divided, transferred, prescribed, used as a guarantee for any credit or contractual obligation, nor shall they be leased, and they shall be exempt from taxation. Taking these circumstances into consideration, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the type of consultations held and the consultation procedures which exist, if any, when indigenous communities consider transferring their lands outside their community.

20. Article 18. Taking into account the information on the conflicts of interests between "landless" rural workers and indigenous communities, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to settle these disputes in cases where indigenous lands are invaded, the penalties applicable to persons who invade indigenous lands, with practical examples, if any, of cases in which such persons have been removed and damages have been paid to an indigenous community. It also requests the Government to indicate the penalties imposed on persons invading indigenous lands, if such penalties exist, and whether they are adequate to impede invasions, as well as on any pending claim to indigenous lands.

21. Article 19. The Committee notes, under section 22 of Act No. 904, for the purposes of the settlement of indigenous communities on public lands, additional land may be granted to meet their economic needs and their need to expand, but that the section respecting agrarian reform in the Constitution does not contain an explicit reference to indigenous peoples. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on whether agrarian reform plans actually secure to indigenous peoples treatment equivalent to that accorded to other sectors of the population, particularly in regions such as Chaco, where the ownership of land by indigenous peoples is not proportional to their numbers.

22. Article 20(3)(d). The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether any legislation, draft legislation or other measures exist to protect the members of these peoples in particular against sexual harassment in employment.

23. In its previous direct request, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on the extent to which indigenous communities are included in the scope of the Labour Code of Paraguay (Act No. 213 of 1993), with particular reference to any special measures designed to facilitate their access to equal opportunities for recruitment and employment. Please also include information on the number and frequency of labour inspections in indigenous areas, with particular reference to the Mennonite settlements. The Committee is once again awaiting the provision of this information.

24. Articles 21, 22 and 23. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which these Articles are applied in practice, and particularly on how it is intended to promote traditional activities related to the subsistence economy. It also requests the Government to indicate the number of credits granted to indigenous communities for the development of handicrafts and rural and community-based industries.

25. Articles 24 and 25. Social security and health. The Committee notes the Government's statements to the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights of the United National Human Rights Commission, in August 1999, indicating that assistance will be provided to the inhabitants of Paraguayan Chaco, including indigenous peoples, in the fields of health, housing, education and living standards, to permit them to live a dignified life, through the Paraguayan Chaco Sustainable Development Project (PRODECHACO), concluded with the European Union in 1995. It requests the Government to provide information on current plans, if any, to improve health services in the areas inhabited by indigenous peoples, including preventive care. It also requests information on the manner in which the PRODECHACO project has benefited indigenous peoples in the region, and particularly indigenous workers on ranches.

26. Article 27. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures adopted to facilitate the access of indigenous peoples to educational institutions, based on their special needs, which incorporate their histories, their knowledge, their value systems and their culture.

27. Article 29. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to facilitate the access of indigenous children to educational institutions with a view to encouraging their full participation in their own community and in the national community.

28. Articles 30 and 31. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its first report in May 1996 that a process of educational reform was being undertaken in the country. It also indicated that the INDI had supported the proposals made by indigenous representatives to the Educational Reform Commission. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the practical outcome of the proposals made by indigenous representatives to the Educational Reform Commission. Furthermore, it requests information on whether any programmes exist to make known to indigenous peoples their rights and duties in regard to labour, economic opportunities, education and health matters, social welfare and their rights deriving from the Convention.

29. The Committee also repeats its earlier request to the Government to provide information on the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to eliminate prejudices which may exist against indigenous peoples by raising awareness and increasing respect for indigenous cultures and traditions among non-indigenous persons who are in most direct contact with the peoples concerned, including government authorities.

30. Article 32. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any type of agreement or dialogue exists with neighbouring countries to facilitate contacts and cooperation with the indigenous peoples of Paraguay.

31. Article 33, paragraph 2(b). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any legislative measure which is currently being taken to align the legislation with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Furthermore, it requests information on any plans to amend the Indigenous Communities' Charter.

Part VIII of the report form. The Committee wishes to recall that this Part of the report form on the Convention indicates that, although such action is not indispensable, the Government may find it helpful to consult organizations of indigenous or tribal peoples in the country, through their traditional institutions where they exist, on the measures taken to give effect to the present Convention and in preparing reports on its application. Since the above information has not been provided by the Government in either of its two reports, please indicate whether such consultations have been held in practice.

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

1. The Committee notes that the report covering the period from 1 June to 1 September 1998 contains information of a general nature but does not respond in full to the matters raised previously in various requests addressed directly to the Government. Shortly before the beginning of its session, the Committee received a new report with numerous annexes covering the period 1 June 1994 to 31 May 1998, which it will examine carefully next year, together with the Government's response to the comments made at its present session and any additional comments which are made. The Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to the following points:

2. Articles 9, paragraph 2, and 11, of the Convention. The Committee notes the information provided by the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) in October 1997, under Convention No. 29, indicating that the working conditions of indigenous persons in ranches suggest an extensive practice of forced labour for the repayment of debts contracted in ranch shops in the purchase of basic foodstuffs and other products of primary necessity at exaggerated prices. This circumstance, combined with the allegation that wages are not paid or are paid at the end of the contract, would signify that in order to survive the workers would have to become indebted and are obliged to work to repay their debt. The information also refers to the ill-treatment suffered by indigenous workers in ranches. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided its comments on these allegations. The Committee therefore urges the Government to provide information on the comments transmitted by the WCL.

3. Articles 13 to 19. Land. The Committee notes that religious missions are delivering definitive title to property to certain indigenous communities and that the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) had considered that the claims of the Lengua and Sanapaná indigenous communities to 40,000 hectares in "Quebrachales Puerto Colón" had been practically settled. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which the transfer of land from the missions to the indigenous communities is proceeding, and on whether the indigenous communities are required to pay compensation and which indigenous communities have benefited from these measures. Please also provide information in the next report on developments in the situation, including the activities of religious missions in this context, whether other non-governmental bodies have pursued such practices in the country and details of the different forms of land tenure prevailing in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples. Please also include information on the finalization of the agreement to resolve the case of indigenous communities in the area known as "Quebrachales Puerto Colón".

4. Article 20. Recruitment and conditions of employment. The Committee has received information on the working conditions of indigenous rural workers in Chaco, according to which their wages are only paid at the end of the year; it is alleged that numerous deductions are made for items including food, which in most cases is said to be over-priced. Moreover, discrimination has been alleged in remuneration, where the minimum wage for indigenous workers may be far lower than the level established by the law and non-indigenous workers earn more for the same type of work. Taking this information into consideration, and even though the Government has not ratified the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129), the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the possibility of establishing adequate labour inspection services in areas where there is a high concentration of indigenous workers in order to monitor the working conditions of indigenous peoples, as envisaged in this Article of the Convention.

5. The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on other matters.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2000.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that, in 1996, a Department for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights was established within the Ministry of the Interior, which is responsible for, inter alia, the receipt and investigation of allegations of human rights violations and the dissemination of relevant materials. Noting that this department will coordinate its activities with both relevant national and international governmental and non-governmental organizations, the Committee requests the Government to provide it with information, in so far as it may be related to the application of the Convention, on the number of human rights complaints received and their outcome, as well as on the activities envisaged and implemented.

The Committee notes with regret, however, that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information also on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes the Government's first report with interest. It also notes the main features given in the report on the development of national policy in relation to indigenous peoples. The Committee notes from the indications supplied that the Government has devoted much greater attention than in the past to the situation of these peoples and welcomes this fact.

2. In its latest comments on Convention No. 107, the Committee referred to various points which were not very clear and expressed the hope that it would receive a detailed report on the application of the Convention in both legislation and practice. The Committee notes that the Government's first report does not contain sufficient information to enable it to analyse comprehensively the conformity of national legislation and practice with all the provisions of the Convention. It therefore requests the Government to send detailed information on the points raised in the report form on the Convention and on the following matters.

3. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee noted the Government's report on Convention No. 107 stating that a national census was carried out in 1992 which included an ethnic component. The Government observes that this census contained little information in regard to the indigenous component but that steps have been taken to identify ways of carrying out a specifically indigenous census. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the possibility of carrying out such a census to determine exactly the size of the indigenous component in the country.

4. Articles 2 and 33. The Committee notes that the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) has created a directorate for projects and development with which it hopes to implement a development planning policy for indigenous communities on the basis of proposals stemming from the communities. The Government lists a number of projects which are being carried out by the INDI which is conducting consultations with the indigenous communities likely to be affected. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed on the consultation procedure being carried out with the indigenous communities and how their opinions are being taken into account where they are contrary to a development project likely to affect them.

5. The Committee hopes that the Government will communicate the INDI reports for 1990, 1991 and 1992, and the most recent reports which have been published.

6. The Committee noted that private entities provided reports on their activities in indigenous communities to the INDI (Council resolution No. 36/89) and that their collaboration and cooperation with the INDI is secured. However, it also notes indications that the relationship between the INDI and the religious missions has not been free of conflict. The Committee requested more information on the mechanisms for inter-institutional collaboration and cooperation among the various governmental, non-governmental and religious entities active in indigenous affairs, including how the INDI has acted on the reports provided to it.

7. Article 7. The Committee notes the information on development projects in the indigenous areas. It requests the Government to send information in its next report on any studies which have been carried out, with the cooperation of the peoples concerned, to assess the socio-cultural, spiritual and environmental impact of the projects prior to their implementation. Please also include information on any measures taken or contemplated to protect and preserve the environment of indigenous territories, devised with the cooperation of the peoples concerned.

8. Article 12. The Committee noted the activity of the INDI in providing legal services to the indigenous communities, detailed in the magazine INDI No. 2/1992. It requests the Government once again to continue to supply such information, including details of any judicial decisions where account has been taken of indigenous customary law in accordance with sections 5 and 6 of Act No. 904/81. Please also keep the Committee informed of the proposed training seminar on customary law for court magistrates.

9. Articles 13 to 18. The Committee notes the information detailing the Government's efforts to transfer property titles to indigenous communities. In this respect, the Government reports that gradually the missionary bodies are handing over definitive property titles to the indigenous communities. The Committee recalls that this practice has been under way for a number of years. It requests the Government to provide more details on how these land transfers are carried out, whether the indigenous communities are required to pay compensation and which indigenous communities have benefited from these measures. Please provide information in the next report in regard to future developments, including the activities of religious missions in this context, whether other non-governmental bodies have pursued such practices in the country and details of the different forms of land tenure prevailing in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples. Please also include information on the finalization of the agreement to solve the issue of the area known as "Quebrachales Puerto Colón" by the indigenous communities.

10. The Committee recalls that in an earlier report on Convention No. 107, the Government stated that during 1991 there was a pronounced increase in the "invasions by landless peasants" of indigenous lands and that illegal settlers in Naranjito, Torreskue and Ka'ajovai have been ordered by the courts to leave the area. The Committee asks the Government to supply information on these judicial decisions and the effect given to them, including any measures taken by the Institute of Rural Welfare to restore the lands of the "Fortuna" community who lost the title to their lands to the Industrial Paraguayan SA company due to an administrative error made by the Institute. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the development of this situation.

11. The Committee had noted that no large hydroelectric projects are planned which will affect indigenous communities, and hopes that the Government will provide information on the transfers of indigenous communities displaced by the Itaupú and Yacyreta dams, any mechanisms in place for paying compensatory damages for any loss or injury, and the amount of compensation actually received by the affected communities. Please also include information indicating the modalities for consulting the peoples concerned before their transfer. Once again, the Committee would be grateful to receive this information.

12. The Committee noted the information regarding the transfer of an additional 10,000 hectares to the Tobas-Maskoy community of Puerto Victoria. It had asked the Government to provide information in its first report on this Convention on any measures it has taken or envisaged to resolve similar problems in other indigenous areas in the country. The Committee would be grateful to receive this information in the next report.

13. Article 20. The Committee noted that the INDI took steps to ensure the coverage of the indigenous communities by the labour laws. The Committee noted with interest the new Labour Code of Paraguay (Act No. 213 of 1993) and requested the Government to provide information on the extent to which indigenous communities are included within its application, with particular reference to any special measures designed to facilitate their access to equal opportunities of recruitment and employment. Please also include information on the number and frequency of labour inspections in indigenous areas, with particular reference to the Mennonite settlements. The Committee would be grateful to receive this information.

14. Article 25. Please provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to improve health care facilities to indigenous communities, including incorporation of the traditional preventive care, healing practices and medicines of these communities.

15. Articles 21 to 24. The Committee noted the information in the Government's last report on Convention No. 107 indicating that the educational system is being restructured as a result of the constitutional recognition of Guaraní as an official language together with Spanish. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken to facilitate the access of indigenous children to educational institutions, based on their special needs, and which incorporate their history, knowledge, values and cultures.

16. Article 31. The last report on Convention No. 107 indicated that indigenous communities continue to face discrimination from other segments of the population. Please provide information on the measures taken or contemplated to overcome such prejudices by increasing awareness of and respect for indigenous cultures and traditions among the people with whom they come into contact, including governmental authorities.

17. The Committee noted that the Mbaracayú project has been regularized, and wishes to recall its request to the Government to send a copy of the above agreement as it has not received one with the present report.

18. Point VIII of the report form. The Committee wishes to recall that under this point of the report form, although such action is not required, the Government may find it helpful to consult organizations of indigenous or tribal peoples in the country, through their traditional institutions where they exist, on the measures taken to give effect to the present Convention, and in preparing reports on its application.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes the Government's first report with interest. It also notes the main features given in the report on the development of national policy in relation to indigenous peoples. The Committee notes from the indications supplied that the Government has devoted much greater attention than in the past to the situation of these peoples and welcomes this fact.

2. In its latest comments on Convention No. 107, the Committee referred to various points which were not very clear and expressed the hope that it would receive a detailed report on the application of the Convention in both legislation and practice. The Committee notes that the Government's first report does not contain sufficient information to enable it to analyse comprehensively the conformity of national legislation and practice with all the provisions of the Convention. It therefore requests the Government to send detailed information on the points raised in the report form on the Convention and on the following matters.

3. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee noted the Government's report on Convention No. 107 stating that a national census was carried out in 1992 which included an ethnic component. The Government observes that this census contained little information in regard to the indigenous component but that steps have been taken to identify ways of carrying out a specifically indigenous census. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the possibility of carrying out such a census to determine exactly the size of the indigenous component in the country.

4. Articles 2 and 33. The Committee notes that the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) has created a directorate for projects and development with which it hopes to implement a development planning policy for indigenous communities on the basis of proposals stemming from the communities. The Government lists a number of projects which are being carried out by the INDI which is conducting consultations with the indigenous communities likely to be affected. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed on the consultation procedure being carried out with the indigenous communities and how their opinions are being taken into account where they are contrary to a development project likely to affect them.

5. The Committee hopes that the Government will communicate the INDI reports for 1990, 1991 and 1992, and the most recent reports which have been published.

6. The Committee noted that private entities provided reports on their activities in indigenous communities to the INDI (Council resolution No. 36/89) and that their collaboration and cooperation with the INDI is secured. However, it also notes indications that the relationship between the INDI and the religious missions has not been free of conflict. The Committee requested more information on the mechanisms for inter-institutional collaboration and cooperation among the various governmental, non-governmental and religious entities active in indigenous affairs, including how the INDI has acted on the reports provided to it.

7. Article 7. The Committee notes the information on development projects in the indigenous areas. It requests the Government to send information in its next report on any studies which have been carried out, with the cooperation of the peoples concerned, to assess the socio-cultural, spiritual and environmental impact of the projects prior to their implementation. Please also include information on any measures taken or contemplated to protect and preserve the environment of indigenous territories, devised with the cooperation of the peoples concerned.

8. Article 12. The Committee noted the activity of the INDI in providing legal services to the indigenous communities, detailed in the magazine INDI No. 2/1992. It requests the Government once again to continue to supply such information, including details of any judicial decisions where account has been taken of indigenous customary law in accordance with sections 5 and 6 of Act No. 904/81. Please also keep the Committee informed of the proposed training seminar on customary law for court magistrates.

9. Articles 13 to 18. The Committee notes the information detailing the Government's efforts to transfer property titles to indigenous communities. In this respect, the Government reports that gradually the missionary bodies are handing over definitive property titles to the indigenous communities. The Committee recalls that this practice has been under way for a number of years. It requests the Government to provide more details on how these land transfers are carried out, whether the indigenous communities are required to pay compensation and which indigenous communities have benefited from these measures. Please provide information in the next report in regard to future developments, including the activities of religious missions in this context, whether other non-governmental bodies have pursued such practices in the country and details of the different forms of land tenure prevailing in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples. Please also include information on the finalization of the agreement to solve the issue of the area known as "Quebrachales Puerto Colón" by the indigenous communities.

10. The Committee recalls that in an earlier report on Convention No. 107, the Government stated that during 1991 there was a pronounced increase in the "invasions by landless peasants" of indigenous lands and that illegal settlers in Naranjito, Torreskue and Ka'ajovai have been ordered by the courts to leave the area. The Committee asks the Government to supply information on these judicial decisions and the effect given to them, including any measures taken by the Institute of Rural Welfare to restore the lands of the "Fortuna" community who lost the title to their lands to the Industrial Paraguayan SA company due to an administrative error made by the Institute. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the development of this situation.

11. The Committee had noted that no large hydroelectric projects are planned which will affect indigenous communities, and hopes that the Government will provide information on the transfers of indigenous communities displaced by the Itaupú and Yacyreta dams, any mechanisms in place for paying compensatory damages for any loss or injury, and the amount of compensation actually received by the affected communities. Please also include information indicating the modalities for consulting the peoples concerned before their transfer. Once again, the Committee would be grateful to receive this information.

12. The Committee noted the information regarding the transfer of an additional 10,000 hectares to the Tobas-Maskoy community of Puerto Victoria. It had asked the Government to provide information in its first report on this Convention on any measures it has taken or envisaged to resolve similar problems in other indigenous areas in the country. The Committee would be grateful to receive this information in the next report.

13. Article 20. The Committee noted that the INDI took steps to ensure the coverage of the indigenous communities by the labour laws. The Committee noted with interest the new Labour Code of Paraguay (Act No. 213 of 1993) and requested the Government to provide information on the extent to which indigenous communities are included within its application, with particular reference to any special measures designed to facilitate their access to equal opportunities of recruitment and employment. Please also include information on the number and frequency of labour inspections in indigenous areas, with particular reference to the Mennonite settlements. The Committee would be grateful to receive this information.

14. Article 25. Please provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to improve health care facilities to indigenous communities, including incorporation of the traditional preventive care, healing practices and medicines of these communities.

15. Articles 21 to 24. The Committee noted the information in the Government's last report on Convention No. 107 indicating that the educational system is being restructured as a result of the constitutional recognition of Guaraní as an official language together with Spanish. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken to facilitate the access of indigenous children to educational institutions, based on their special needs, and which incorporate their history, knowledge, values and cultures.

16. Article 31. The last report on Convention No. 107 indicated that indigenous communities continue to face discrimination from other segments of the population. Please provide information on the measures taken or contemplated to overcome such prejudices by increasing awareness of and respect for indigenous cultures and traditions among the people with whom they come into contact, including governmental authorities.

17. The Committee noted that the Mbaracayú project has been regularized, and wishes to recall its request to the Government to send a copy of the above agreement as it has not received one with the present report.

18. Point VIII of the report form. The Committee wishes to recall that under this point of the report form, although such action is not required, the Government may find it helpful to consult organizations of indigenous or tribal peoples in the country, through their traditional institutions where they exist, on the measures taken to give effect to the present Convention, and in preparing reports on its application.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

1. The Committee notes the Government's first report with interest. It also notes the main features given in the report on the development of national policy in relation to indigenous peoples. The Committee notes from the indications supplied that the Government has devoted much greater attention than in the past to the situation of these peoples and welcomes this fact.

2. In its latest comments on Convention No. 107, the Committee referred to various points which were not very clear and expressed the hope that it would receive a detailed report on the application of the Convention in both legislation and practice. The Committee notes that the Government's first report does not contain sufficient information to enable it to analyse comprehensively the conformity of national legislation and practice with all the provisions of the Convention. It therefore requests the Government to send detailed information on the points raised in the report form on the Convention and on the following matters.

3. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee noted the Government's report on Convention No. 107 stating that a national census was carried out in 1992 which included an ethnic component. The Government observes that this census contained little information in regard to the indigenous component but that steps have been taken to identify ways of carrying out a specifically indigenous census. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the possibility of carrying out such a census to determine exactly the size of the indigenous component in the country.

4. Articles 2 and 33. The Committee notes that the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute (INDI) has created a directorate for projects and development with which it hopes to implement a development planning policy for indigenous communities on the basis of proposals stemming from the communities. The Government lists a number of projects which are being carried out by the INDI which is conducting consultations with the indigenous communities likely to be affected. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed on the consultation procedure being carried out with the indigenous communities and how their opinions are being taken into account where they are contrary to a development project likely to affect them.

5. The Committee hopes that the Government will communicate the INDI reports for 1990, 1991 and 1992, and the most recent reports which have been published.

6. The Committee noted that private entities provided reports on their activities in indigenous communities to the INDI (Council resolution No. 36/89) and that their collaboration and cooperation with the INDI is secured. However, it also notes indications that the relationship between the INDI and the religious missions has not been free of conflict. The Committee requested more information on the mechanisms for inter-institutional collaboration and cooperation among the various governmental, non-governmental and religious entities active in indigenous affairs, including how the INDI has acted on the reports provided to it.

7. Article 7. The Committee notes the information on development projects in the indigenous areas. It requests the Government to send information in its next report on any studies which have been carried out, with the cooperation of the peoples concerned, to assess the socio-cultural, spiritual and environmental impact of the projects prior to their implementation. Please also include information on any measures taken or contemplated to protect and preserve the environment of indigenous territories, devised with the cooperation of the peoples concerned.

8. Article 12. The Committee noted the activity of the INDI in providing legal services to the indigenous communities, detailed in the magazine INDI No. 2/1992. It requests the Government once again to continue to supply such information, including details of any judicial decisions where account has been taken of indigenous customary law in accordance with sections 5 and 6 of Act No. 904/81. Please also keep the Committee informed of the proposed training seminar on customary law for court magistrates.

9. Articles 13 to 18. The Committee notes the information detailing the Government's efforts to transfer property titles to indigenous communities. In this respect, the Government reports that gradually the missionary bodies are handing over definitive property titles to the indigenous communities. The Committee recalls that this practice has been under way for a number of years. It requests the Government to provide more details on how these land transfers are carried out, whether the indigenous communities are required to pay compensation and which indigenous communities have benefited from these measures. Please provide information in the next report in regard to future developments, including the activities of religious missions in this context, whether other non-governmental bodies have pursued such practices in the country and details of the different forms of land tenure prevailing in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples. Please also include information on the finalization of the agreement to solve the issue of the area known as "Quebrachales Puerto Colón" by the indigenous communities.

10. The Committee recalls that in an earlier report on Convention No. 107, the Government stated that during 1991 there was a pronounced increase in the "invasions by landless peasants" of indigenous lands and that illegal settlers in Naranjito, Torreskue and Ka'ajovai have been ordered by the courts to leave the area. The Committee asks the Government to supply information on these judicial decisions and the effect given to them, including any measures taken by the Institute of Rural Welfare to restore the lands of the "Fortuna" community who lost the title to their lands to the Industrial Paraguayan SA company due to an administrative error made by the Institute. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the development of this situation.

11. The Committee had noted that no large hydroelectric projects are planned which will affect indigenous communities, and hopes that the Government will provide information on the transfers of indigenous communities displaced by the Itaupú and Yacyreta dams, any mechanisms in place for paying compensatory damages for any loss or injury, and the amount of compensation actually received by the affected communities. Please also include information indicating the modalities for consulting the peoples concerned before their transfer. Once again, the Committee would be grateful to receive this information.

12. The Committee noted the information regarding the transfer of an additional 10,000 hectares to the Tobas-Maskoy community of Puerto Victoria. It had asked the Government to provide information in its first report on this Convention on any measures it has taken or envisaged to resolve similar problems in other indigenous areas in the country. The Committee would be grateful to receive this information in the next report.

13. Article 20. The Committee noted that the INDI took steps to ensure the coverage of the indigenous communities by the labour laws. The Committee noted with interest the new Labour Code of Paraguay (Act No. 213 of 1993) and requested the Government to provide information on the extent to which indigenous communities are included within its application, with particular reference to any special measures designed to facilitate their access to equal opportunities of recruitment and employment. Please also include information on the number and frequency of labour inspections in indigenous areas, with particular reference to the Mennonite settlements. The Committee would be grateful to receive this information.

14. Article 25. Please provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to improve health care facilities to indigenous communities, including incorporation of the traditional preventive care, healing practices and medicines of these communities.

15. Articles 21 to 24. The Committee noted the information in the Government's last report on Convention No. 107 indicating that the educational system is being restructured as a result of the constitutional recognition of Guaraní as an official language together with Spanish. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken to facilitate the access of indigenous children to educational institutions, based on their special needs, and which incorporate their history, knowledge, values and cultures.

16. Article 31. The last report on Convention No. 107 indicated that indigenous communities continue to face discrimination from other segments of the population. Please provide information on the measures taken or contemplated to overcome such prejudices by increasing awareness of and respect for indigenous cultures and traditions among the people with whom they come into contact, including governmental authorities.

17. The Committee noted that the Mbaracayú project has been regularized, and wishes to recall its request to the Government to send a copy of the above agreement as it has not received one with the present report.

Point VIII of the report form

18. The Committee wishes to recall that under this point of the report form, although such action is not required, the Government may find it helpful to consult organizations of indigenous or tribal peoples in the country, through their traditional institutions where they exist, on the measures taken to give effect to the present Convention, and in preparing reports on its application.