Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2021, Publication: 109th ILC session (2021)

Written information provided by the Government

Protection measures implemented as a result of violent deaths and threats to members of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples (PIAH)

(1) Protection measures requested for indigenous leaders Cándido Martínez Vásquez and Manuel Salvador Sánchez, from the Lenca San Tomas community, Gualcince, Department of Lempira, who have received death threats;

(2) members of the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH) in the context of precautionary measures MC-112-16;

(3) executive committee and advisers of the Garifuna de Cristales and Rio Negro community, Trujillo, Colón;

(4) members of the Independent Lenca Indigenous Movement, La Paz (MILPAH);

(5) Lenca indigenous leader Cándido Roberto Martínez (Gualcince, Lempira);

(6) Lenca indigenous leader Manuel Salvador Sánchez (Gualcince, Lempira);

(7) Lenca indigenous leader Felipe Benítez, La Paz (MILPAH);

(8) Francisco Gámez, Lempira (COPINH);

(9) Rosario García Rodas, representative of the Lenca Indigenous Organization of Honduras (ONILH);

(10) Luis Antonio Gonzáles, Luquigue, Yorito Yoro;

(11) José Isabel López (Guaruma Montaña de la Flor);

(12) executive council of the Tolupán de Candelaria tribe, Yoro;

(13) José Camilo Rodríguez, José Adán Medina, Simeon Rodríguez (Candelaria tribe, Yoro);

(14) members of the Pech Santa Maria del Carbon tribe, Olancho;

(15) Lenca indigenous leader Apolinario Vásquez (La Paz).

Measures needed to promote a climate free of violence for the members of indigenous communities and their representatives, and to ensure the full and effective exercise of their human and collective rights, as well as their access to justice

From its creation in 2018 until February 2021, the Prevention and Context Analysis Unit has drawn up a total of 14 plans for prevention and guarantees of non-recurrence, which have been formulated in conjunction with the population groups benefiting from protection measures in different areas of the country, such as the Lenca indigenous people of La Paz, the Tolupán indigenous people of La Montaña de La Flor, Garifuna communities of Puerto Cortés, Lenca indigenous communities of Intibucá; defenders of the LGBTI community; journalists and media representatives, human rights defenders in the south of Honduras, and also defenders of the right to land through agrarian reform in Bajo Aguán.

Moreover, the above-mentioned Unit has organized 43 dissemination days in relation to the Protection Act, training 814 individuals, including human rights defenders, defenders of indigenous communities, members of the Garifuna people, trade unionists, journalists, media representatives and justice officials.

In 2020, with technical assistance provided through the Letter of Understanding of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Secretariat, the “Handbook for the implementation of gender and intersectional mainstreaming” in assistance provided by the National Protection System.

Also in 2020, with technical assistance from the European Union rights programme, two protocols were drawn up to provide comprehensive assistance for beneficiaries of the National Protection System: (i) Protocol for the implementation and follow-up of temporary relocation, in the context of a pandemic or similar scenarios, by the Implementation and Monitoring Unit, and its guide to implementation; and (ii) Protocol for a comprehensive response to requests for protection measures in the context of a pandemic or similar scenarios by the Case Reception and Immediate Response Unit, and its guide to implementation; and a Protocol for institutional coordination between the Department for Preventive Risk Management in relation to Human Rights Violations and Social Conflict and the Prevention and Context Analysis Unit (UPAC) of the Department for the System of Protection for Human Rights Defenders, Journalists, Media Representatives and Justice Officials, attached to the Human Rights Secretariat.

Appropriate measures to ensure that responsibility is apportioned and the instigators are punished in the Berta Cáceres case

According to a report issued by the Special Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes against Life with regard to the instigators, proceedings are currently under way against Mr Roberto David Castillo Mejía. Here no judgment has yet been issued because of delays in the proceedings, owing to the fact that the Public Prosecutor’s Office has continued its investigations in order to determine whether any other individuals have been involved in this murder and if so on what basis. Even with the existing delays, the trial against Mr Castillo was opened on 6 April 2021. However, the defence of the accused and suspected instigator, Mr David Castillo, submitted a challenge against the trial court, specifically against the judges who will decide whether or not the accused is guilty, resulting in the deferral of the trial until the Court of Appeal decides whether or not to replace the judges conducting the proceedings. These proceedings have been dismissed, with the requested replacement resulting in the rescheduling of the oral and public trial.

Measures implemented with regard to the process of prior, free and informed consultation

The Bill was shared with private enterprise institutions, organizations from civil society and international cooperation, and human rights defenders, not only to publicize the Bill but also to obtain a technical opinion in this regard and seek cooperation in the process of dissemination, consultation and adoption of the Bill.

Meetings were held with various sectors to pinpoint the precise objective and content of the Bill.

The Evaluation Committee, with support from the National Congress Legislative Management Department in the process of planning consultations, and in order to ensure the opening up and inclusion of the sectors involved, sent a request for advice and support in the formulation of the consultation strategy to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Honduras, to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and to the office of the International Labour Organization in Honduras. Meetings were arranged with the respective parties and the Bill document currently before the Evaluation Committee was shared. The organizations were also asked for their technical opinions on the Bill.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Honduras agreed to collaborate with the Evaluation Committee, providing technical assistance to the National Congress for capacity-building in relation to international standards on the subject of prior, free and informed consultation, for both deputies and officials of the National Congress, who will participate in the process of adoption of the Act so that the process is accomplished in the optimum manner. Support was also requested from them in the revision and restructuring of the Bill in conjunction with the participation of all indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples in Honduras, and in the design of an appropriate methodology involving indigenous peoples in the preparation of the Bill. On this last subject, no agreement has been reached so far.

The ILO representative on indigenous matters, after a meeting with the Evaluation Committee on the premises of the National Congress and further to a request by email, agreed to provide his technical opinion on the shared document, though this opinion has not yet been received.

As part of the planning process, emphasis was placed on the importance of mapping the indigenous and Afro-Honduran institutions which need to participate in the consultation process that must be undertaken to give legitimacy to the process. For the preparation of the mapping, meetings were held with a number of organizations bringing together institutions representing the peoples. Through their collaboration information was gathered forming the basis, together with another investigation being carried out by National Congress technical staff, for the current analysis so that it will be ready when the consultation process for the adoption of the Bill is launched.

Two bridge-building meetings were held using digital videoconference platforms with a number of representatives of the indigenous peoples.

A meeting was held between the pro tempore President of the G16, the Evaluation Committee, a team of advisers from the National Congress and a number of indigenous representatives with the purpose of informing the aforementioned of the current status of the Bill.

Specific measures to improve the situation of Miskito dive-fishers

reforms to the Regulations on occupational safety and health in underwater fishing: Executive Decree STSS-577-2020;

practical guide for safe dive-fishing in Honduras; considerations relating to dive-fishing in the context of underwater fishing;

Plan of Action (for the implementation of the Regulations on occupational safety and health in underwater fishing);

Tripartite Cooperation Agreement on providing comprehensive health services for the population engaged in dive-fishing (SSIPPB), with priority given to divers suffering from decompression sickness, between the Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion (SEDIS), the Ministry of Health (SESAL) and the Association of Industrial Fishers of the Honduran Caribbean (APICAH);

formulation of a Pluriannual Strategic Plan of the Inter-Institutional Commission for Problem Prevention and Assistance in Dive-Fishing (CIAPEB), drawn up by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 2013 as an instrument for facilitating intervention in identified priority areas;

repair, refurbishment and delivery of ten motorboats to facilitate productive and organizational activities;

alternative special care for dive-fishers with disabilities, on account of difficulties of access to hospital care and to avoid long waiting times for basic and/or special medical care;

provision of economic support to individuals in transit through Tegucigalpa referred by the health system in La Mosquitia;

Project 8 – 002-2017: Development of business capacities in the community of Benk, Marine Resources Collection Centre, Villeda Morales;

Project 9 – 003-2017: Support for the development of agricultural production and supplies of staple grains in the community of Belén, Brus Laguna;

social project to reinforce the assistance centre of the Association of Honduran Miskito Divers with Disabilities (AMHBLI);

project for the reinforcement of CIAPEB;

construction of AMHBLI one-stop centre (Puerto Lempira);

bursaries for children of dive-fishers with disabilities;

disability and rural bonus;

organizational reinforcement of AMHBLI;

reforms in occupational safety and health in underwater fishing (Brus Laguna and Puerto Lempira).

Participation of the Miskito people in the formulation, application and evaluation of the above-mentioned measures

2017: Focus on beneficiaries for the delivery of assisted mobility equipment (wheelchairs, crutches, walking sticks, etc.), carried out with complete autonomy by AMHBLI;

planned deliveries of food rations under family supervision and subsequent delivery with the active involvement of AMHBLI;

2018: Planned food deliveries under the supervision of AMHBLI and beneficiary families, and subsequently delivery with the active involvement of AMHBLI;

March 2019: AMHBLI-CIAPEB joint project inspection;

2019: Implementation of Technical Assistance Project: lucp-hon/3703/c3 – Improvement of occupational safety and decent work in dive-fishing in Honduras: Introduction to the updating and reform of the Regulations on occupational safety and health in underwater fishing, in the municipalities of Brus Laguna and Puerto Lempira.

Discussion by the Committee

Government representative, Secretary of State for Labour and Social Security – I would like to begin my statement by congratulating the Chairperson on her appointment to direct the work of the Committee and by thanking the organizers of this important event under the direction of the ILO and our Office of External Cooperation. We celebrate the participation of all nations, peoples and organizations represented here.

With regard to the case under discussion, which was already raised in this Committee in 2016, allow me to make the following remarks.

The Government of Honduras is appearing in a responsible manner before this Committee to describe the substantive advances in recent years in response to the Committee’s observations relating to us as a country. We are surprised and deeply concerned that once again we have been included in the short list of countries appearing before the Committee.

As regards appropriate consultation and participation procedures, on 23 May 2018 the executive branch, after a coordinated process, referred to the National Congress of the Republic of Honduras the Bill on free, prior and informed consultation for indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples. This Bill was transmitted for examination and opinion to a special Evaluation Committee, which performed the following actions. In order to obtain a technical opinion, the Bill was shared with private enterprise institutions, organizations from civil society and international cooperation and human rights defenders, among others. Support was also requested from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Honduras, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the ILO Regional Office which covers Honduras, thereby building capacity in relation to international labour standards on the subject of prior, free and informed consultation, for members, deputies and officials of the National Congress.

The ILO representative on indigenous affairs is sending a polite reminder to the Evaluation Committee of the National Congress to establish an appropriate consultation and participation mechanism in accordance with Convention No. 169 and to take the necessary steps to ensure that indigenous peoples are consulted and can participate in a suitable manner through their representative bodies in the setting up of that mechanism. So that the National Congress Evaluation Committee could provide a sound basis for its decision, it carried out a mapping process with respect to the organizations comprising representatives of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples with the purpose of ensuring their participation in the process.

With the arrival of the pandemic and the ensuing suspension of constitutional guarantees in the country, many actions planned by the Evaluation Committee were decimated. However, bridge-building meetings were held using digital platforms with various sectors, including representatives of the indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples. In addition, the Evaluation Committee held meetings with the international community represented in our country within the G16 group, with the purpose of providing information on the current status of the above-mentioned Bill. The Evaluation Committee has currently drawn up a road map for consolidating a legal instrument to facilitate discussion and subsequent adoption of the Bill in the National Congress.

In light of the above, there is evidence of substantial advances suggesting that this is a case of progress. In the capacity of the Government and in the context of the powers conferred on it by law, we have duly discharged our responsibility in timely fashion; we consider, in accordance with the principles of law, that we are respectful of the separation of powers in our country. Taking the appropriate decision on the matter in question is therefore entrusted to the legislative branch, an autonomous and independent body.

With regard to the implementation of the necessary measures for investigating murders and acts of violence, various steps have been taken to promote a climate free of violence. Moreover, suitable steps have been taken to protect the physical and psychological integrity of members of indigenous peoples and their representatives, guaranteeing the full and effective exercise of their human, individual and collective rights, and also their access to justice. The Prevention and Contextual Analysis Unit has been established; 14 prevention plans have been drawn up; 43 dissemination days in relation to the Protection Act have been held; and training on protection issues has been provided for 814 individuals. All the foregoing has been possible thanks to the participation of the Lenca, Tolupán and Garífuna indigenous peoples, justice officials, journalists and media professionals.

With regard to the observation on the judicial proceedings in response to the complaints of offences of violence and threats against indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, the Special Prosecutor for Ethnic Matters and Cultural Heritage at the Public Prosecutor’s Office has opened legal proceedings in 248 cases of complaints regarding acts of violence and threats against members of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples. Between 2018 and 2020, measures were taken in relation to threats, abuses of authority, usurpation, attempted killings, murders and discrimination. In addition, 25 cases are active under the mechanism for the protection of the human rights of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples.

With regard to the adoption of appropriate measures to ensure that the instigators in the case of Berta Isabel Cáceres Flores are punished, the Public Prosecutor’s Office states that criminal proceedings against those involved, specifically the instigator, are currently under way. Investigations are continuing into whether any other persons are involved. The proceedings are at the stage of examination of evidence, and so the National Trial Court itself has carried out the criminal trial hearings.

With regard to the adoption of measures to improve the working conditions of Miskito dive-fishers, Honduras shows it willingness to make reparation for the damage to victims by adopting an amicable practical solution between the State of Honduras and any victims among Miskito dive-fishers. Reforms have been carried out to the Regulations on underwater fishing; the Regulations on occupational safety and health in dive-fishing have been issued; and obligations have been imposed on employers to ensure the safety and health of workers in underwater fishing. The Ministry of Labour has carried out inspections at sea in conjunction with the Honduran Navy, the Ministry of Health, the Directorate-General of Fisheries and the Office of the Attorney-General.

In conclusion, I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity given to the Government of Honduras to respond to the observations made by this distinguished Committee, reiterating our zealous compliance with and respect for international labour standards, including Convention No. 169.

Employer members – First, we would like to thank the Government of Honduras for the oral and written information provided relating to compliance, in law and in practice, with Convention No. 169. As usual, we would like to provide more context for a better understanding of the case.

This is the second time that the Committee is discussing this case. The first time was in 2016 and since then the Committee of Experts prepared observations on the matter in 2019 and 2020, taking note of the Government’s reports and the observations made by two trade union confederations and by the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), supported by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE).

The Committee of Experts, in its follow-up in its latest 2020 observation, addresses three specific points: first, in relation to compliance with Article 3 on the rights of indigenous peoples; second, with respect to the obligation of prior consultation under Article 6 of the Convention; and, third, with respect to the protection of the rights of the Miskito people, in relation to dive-fishing.

With regard to compliance with Article 3 of the Convention on the issue of human rights, the Committee of Experts noted at that time with deep concern the information regarding murders, threats and violence against representatives of indigenous peoples, as well as the climate of impunity. The Employer members express their concern, and reject all acts of violence and threats carried out within the context of the defence of human rights.

We are aware that Honduras has experienced a climate of widespread violence in recent years owing to different problems facing the country, in the political, social and economic spheres, which has provoked an atmosphere of violence in general.

Despite this context, we recognize and applaud the fact that the Government has taken and continues to take specific protection measures for indigenous leaders, which the Government has just referred to in its presentation. We encourage it to continue to do so for the benefit of those leaders and the rest of the population, including workers and employers who are also victims of this climate of violence.

Among the actions taken, including those referred to by the Government which have this aim, we highlight: the establishment of the Human Rights Secretariat which, it maintains, has reduced levels of violence, and the establishment of the Commission on Anti-Union Violence and the Working Group on Conflict Prevention, to which the Government representative has referred. All these bodies, as explained, cover the aforementioned cases in monitoring compliance with the Convention.

Much work remains to be done and it would be very positive if, as a result of social dialogue, a work plan with specific and measurable medium and long-term goals be drawn up, with the active and coordinated participation of the Government and the productive sector, the latter through the most representative organizations of workers and employers. It is vital to build a climate of trust that influences society with respect to the laws, courts and institutions and, in this way, there will surely be improvements in the living conditions of all Hondurans.

We are not unaware of the adverse conditions that have arisen as a result of the pandemic in Honduras, exacerbated by the natural phenomena to which this country has been exposed. However, in this instance, we encourage the Government to continue to take all possible measures to foster a climate free of violence that benefits the population and adequately protects the members of indigenous communities and their representatives, and guarantees the full exercise of their human rights. We also invite the Government to continue reporting in a timely manner to the Committee of Experts in this regard and to do so, invariably, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations. Strengthening of social dialogue under these conditions is essential.

The second aspect relates to Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention, regarding appropriate consultation and participation procedures. As a reminder, Honduras ratified the Convention in 1995, more than 25 years ago, and the right to consultation and participation of indigenous peoples remains unregulated. Although there is a general consensus that the Convention and corresponding consultation and participation does not grant or imply a power of veto for the indigenous populations consulted, the fact is that in countries where this prior consultation has not been regulated, as is the case in Honduras, there is a risk of a de facto veto of investment projects and, therefore, of progress. This is compounded by the effect of inconsistent and contradictory court decisions based on an inaccurate interpretation of the Convention, which generates legal uncertainty. These two factors affect investment and generate enormous social losses because thousands of direct and indirect jobs are either lost or not created and, therefore, the possibility of making progress in the regions that need it, and which are usually the poorest, is also lost. The reference in court decisions to the Convention or, in other words, the application of its provisions through court rulings and not through agreement of the interested parties, as it should be, is becoming a factor that distorts and complicates the institutional and regulatory development of the Convention, and generates high levels of social conflict to the detriment of all.

The Committee adopted conclusions in 2016 and urged the Government, in very clear terms, to regulate, without delay, in consultation with the social partners, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, the requirement to consult so that such consultations are held in good faith and in a form appropriate to the circumstances, with the objective of achieving agreement or consent to the proposed measures.

I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that the international instrument mentioned, namely Article 6 of the Convention, is the only legally binding instrument for Honduras, and not others, such as the declaration drawn up by the United Nations system.

While we recognize significant progress in this regard, we must note that the draft Bill that has been submitted by the executive branch to the National Congress, further to the consultations carried out, has unfortunately still not been passed.

The Committee of Experts does not place enough emphasis on something that seems important to us: from May 2016 until February 2017, the Government, with the technical and financial support of the United Nations Development Programme, promoted a consultation process for the regulation of prior consultation, through which 17 regional workshops and one national workshop were held, and seven indigenous peoples and the two Afro-Honduran peoples were consulted through organizations representing them. Despite these efforts, apparently the great division among indigenous peoples, as well as other reasons or justifications, has not allowed for the clear determination of an agreement regarding the Bill on consultation within the framework of the Convention. Honduras, as we are informed, is about to conclude this legislative process for regulation of the obligation to consult under the terms of Article 6 of the Convention and we trust that this will materialize without delay in accordance with its domestic procedures and without interference from external bodies.

With a view to achieving this and the other proposed objectives, we consider that the Government should concentrate its efforts on working closely with the ILO, which is responsible for ensuring the proper application of the Convention. It is very important that it exhausts its domestic procedures and does not generate confusion.

That said, it is clear that there are still areas in which the Government must continue to work. It seems to us, however, that progress is being made in several areas that we must acknowledge. We encourage the Government to continue its efforts to comply with the provisions set out in the Convention.

Worker members – This is the second time that the Committee is called to examine the application of Convention No. 169 by the Government of Honduras. In 2016, the Committee had expressed concern at the lack of progress on the necessary regulatory framework for prior consultation, and had urged the Government to ensure the implementation of the Convention in a climate of dialogue and understanding, free from violence.

Five years have passed, and we can only deplore the inadequacy of actions taken by the Government to respond to the endemic violence against indigenous peoples and their defenders. Honduras remains one of the deadliest countries for defenders of environmental and human rights, with four indigenous leaders killed in 2018, 14 in 2019, and 12 in 2020. Countless others are regularly threatened, physically assaulted, and forcibly disappeared, like the four members of the Garífuna community who were seized from their homes on 18 July 2020 never to be seen again. On 27 December, José Adán Medina, a member of the Tolupán indigenous community, was found shot dead in a remote location in the community of El Volcán. A day earlier, Félix Vásquez, a prominent environmental activist from the Lenca indigenous group, was killed in front of his family by masked men armed with guns and machetes.

In its report to the Committee of Experts, the Government provides general information on measures taken to protect indigenous communities, including identifying and monitoring collective and individual risks, prevention plans and training, and awareness-raising activities on the importance of the work of defenders of indigenous peoples.

The Special Prosecutor for Ethnic Matters and Cultural Heritage has called for protection measures. However, the Government provides no information regarding the implementation of these measures or their effectiveness in preventing attacks. There lies the problem: in a context of extreme violence and deep-rooted impunity, the measures adopted by the Government are by no means commensurate to the pressing needs for protection of indigenous leaders and communities. Suffice it to say that Félix Vásquez had filed numerous complaints since 2017 to report the death threats he was receiving. The Government never acted, even after the Honduras National Human Rights Commission requested protective measures for him in January 2020.

Investigation and prosecution of criminal acts are equally lacking. Five years after the assassination of Berta Cáceres, the trial of the person accused of instigating the crime is still pending. In a report of 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders in Honduras indicated that the vast majority of murders and attacks targeting rights defenders go unpunished. If investigations are launched at all, they are inconclusive. The Government of Honduras must be accountable for such appalling violations of the right to life, and the personal integrity of indigenous peoples. It must immediately intensify its efforts to protect defenders of indigenous peoples’ rights, prevent acts of violence and persecutions against them, and investigate, prosecute and penalize perpetrators and instigators of these acts.

With regard to the development of the draft Bill on prior, free and informed consultation of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, we note the efforts deployed by the Government to organize consultations and advance its adoption. We note, in particular, that the Government referred the draft Bill to the National Congress, which subsequently established a special advisory committee on the Consultation Act.

In 2020, the Government let the COVID-19 pandemic, and its subsequent restrictions on freedom of movement, significantly hamper consultation processes with indigenous people, unfortunately.

The rights to be consulted and to participate in decision-making constitute a cornerstone of the Convention. The Government must ensure adequate time for meaningful consultation with indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples so as to ensure that the draft Bill is the result of a process of full, free and informed consent with all the indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples. It is equally crucial to ensure that the Act which will be adopted provides for robust, inclusive and trusted consultation and participation processes, guaranteeing that indigenous peoples can fully participate in the decisions that affect them.

We are particularly adamant on the need for the Government to enhance consultation processes, as they are closely linked to a number of issues affecting indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, and routinely neglected by the Government, such as: (1) the identification and mapping of the lands which indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples traditionally occupy and the effective protection of the rights of ownership and possession; (2) the preservation of the rights of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples to the natural resources pertaining to their lands, especially in view of programmes for their exploration or exploitation, including mining activities; and (3) their access to justice and their awareness of their rights.

We recall that, in 2015, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights handed down a decision regarding the Garífuna people of Punta Piedra, emphasizing their right to the lands, territories and resources that they have traditionally owned, occupied, used or acquired, as well as the right to possess, use, develop and control those lands.

As regards the situation of the Miskito people, we note that the Government is offering comprehensive health services and compensation programmes for dive-fishers and their families. However, we are concerned at the deplorable situation of the Miskito divers who, despite the measures taken, continue to be the victims of precarious working conditions without adequate occupational safety measures. Specific measures are still needed to ensure the effective protection of workers belonging to the Miskito people, with regard to recruitment and conditions of work, as provided for by Article 20(1) of the Convention.

Finally, regarding coordinated policies and actions aimed at improving access of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples to health services, education and housing, we call on the Government to pursue its efforts and to coordinate actions with the participation of the peoples concerned, with a view to eliminating the socio-economic gaps that still exist between them and other members of the national community, and to promote the full realization of the socio-economic and cultural rights of these peoples.

Employer member, Honduras – It has come as a surprise to us that Honduras has once again been called upon this year in relation to the observations concerning the Convention. Nevertheless, we believe that it is important for the Employers to make some clarifications on the observations of the Committee of Experts in the 2021 Addendum to its 2020 report.

As noted by this Committee and the Office, the employers in Honduras have always provided their observations on compliance with international labour standards, which are law in the Republic of Honduras. On this occasion, we wish to indicate the following.

First, as representatives of employers in Honduras, we have always rejected violence in any form against persons, groups of citizens or foreign nationals, and we regret the acts of violence committed in recent years in our country, which have been generalized and not directed against any group or individual. The employer representatives in the Economic and Social Council proposed the establishment of the Committee on Anti-Union Violence and the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes referred to the ILO (MEPCOIT), which have supplemented the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the National Police and the judiciary, and which are subjects to be examined in relation to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), rather than Convention No. 169.

Second, as we explained to the Committee in 2016, the most representative employers’ organization in Honduras, COHEP, has always shown special interest in regulating the right of consultation of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, in accordance with the requirements of the Convention, which is a binding instrument for the State of Honduras, and we will always refer to it in this way.

Third, it is necessary to recall in this Committee that the employers have always requested ILO support for the consultation, preparation and adoption of the law on prior consultation, through its specialists, and that they proposed and submitted notes to the National Congress of Honduras, which is the legislative authority in our country, calling for advisers to assist the commission responsible for reviewing the legislation and in support of the discussions in the Plenary of the National Congress.

As an employers’ organization, we have collaborated in the adoption of the law on prior consultation. We categorically affirm that this Act must be approved in line with standards that comply with the principle of good faith, which must be understood as consultation that does not imply the right of veto, with consent only required in the exceptional cases envisaged in Article 16 of the Convention in relation to the relocation of indigenous populations.

Fourth, we have explained to the Government of Honduras, to international organizations and to the ILO that the employers in Honduras require the adoption of the Act for purposes of legal security for investment and the personal safety of the inhabitants, but that it should not address matters that are not covered by the Convention. It must always be borne in mind that consultation is not a referendum or a plebiscite between peoples, but a consultation in places that may be affected directly by a decision. It must also be understood that consultation does not give rise to a veto, as we have emphasized to all state and international bodies.

Fifth, as employers, we gave our support to the draft text transmitted at the time by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to the legislative authorities, but there have been delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic and hurricanes Eta and Iota which struck Honduran territory, and that has not permitted a full discussion by the legislative body. We hope that it will happen over the next few weeks and that it will benefit from ILO technical support, through its specialists who are familiar with the objectives and provisions of the Convention, and not other international organizations or agencies.

Lastly, we wish to reiterate the support of Honduran employers for the adoption and implementation of a legal instrument that gives legal certainty and tranquillity to the citizens and for investment. We also call on this Committee and the Committee of Experts to examine cases of violence related to the right to organize in the context of Convention No. 87, and to avoid any confusion with the scope of application of a Convention of another nature, such as Convention No. 169. Nevertheless, the establishment of the Committee on Anti-Union Violence deriving from the Committee’s conclusions should be considered as significant progress in the field of human rights.

Government member, Barbados – I make this intervention on behalf of a significant majority of countries from Latin America and the Caribbean. We welcome the distinguished Minister of Labour and Social Security and the representatives of the delegation of the Government of Honduras present in this session and who have submitted up-to-date information to the Committee. We thank the Government of Honduras for the presentation of its report on the follow-up to the observations of the Committee of Experts and the conclusions adopted by the Conference Committee during the 105th Session of the Conference in 2016, all of which relate to the application of Convention No. 169.

We appreciate the Government’s efforts in establishing and further strengthening measures aimed at ensuring the integrity and protection of indigenous communities and human rights defenders. We welcome the progress achieved through the implementation of the mechanism for the protection of human rights defenders, journalists, social communicators and justice operators and the creation of specialized judicial bodies to defend the rights of indigenous peoples. These actions are indicative of the Government’s commitment to improving the situation and reducing cases of violence against human rights defenders in the country. We emphasize the openness and commitment of the Government of Honduras to cooperate closely with the mechanisms of the United Nations system in labour and human rights matters for the implementation of the Convention. We welcome the technical assistance provided by the country office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, established in 2015, which has facilitated the strengthening of the National Protection System and the establishment of specific protection protocols in the context of the pandemic.

We recognize the progress presented by the Government in the formulation of a draft Act on free, prior and informed consultation. We note the efforts of the special Evaluation Committee of the National Congress to integrate the different perspectives of the main actors involved in the formulation of the draft Act.

As stated in the Government’s report, we believe that the early identification of these actors will give the draft Act a high degree of participation and ownership, particularly of indigenous peoples’ communities. The dissemination workshops held since 2018 and the mapping of indigenous and Afro-Honduran institutions are initiatives that can pave the way for this process.

We welcome the development and implementation of multidimensional policies promoted by the Government to improve working conditions in the dive-fishing sector. In particular, we highlight the recent publication of the Regulations on occupational safety and health in dive-fishing.

As a final note, we encourage the Government to continue to cooperate in its efforts to implement the international commitments made under the Convention. We also extend our encouragement to the International Labour Office to continue providing its technical support to the Government of Honduras.

Employer member, Costa Rica – Employers in Costa Rica consider that Honduras has made the necessary efforts to guarantee the rights of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, including the regulation of the right to prior consultation, which is established in the Convention.

The process of social dialogue has been respected, as envisaged by the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), which, as we know, is one of the governance Conventions that guarantees the participation of representatives of workers’ and employers’ organizations on an equal footing, and accordingly a Bill on prior consultation has been accepted in accordance with international standards. Nevertheless, it is important for the employers to indicate, in the same way as in other countries, that they consider that this type of legal framework must be established without infringing Articles 6 and 7 of Convention No. 169, which have been distorted, with the promotion under the right to consultation of other concepts and rights that are not recognized in the Convention.

Employers in Honduras, represented by COHEP, have indicated that they consider it appropriate, before the approval of the Bill on prior consultation, for the legislative authorities, the executive authorities and the organizations of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples in Honduras to receive ILO technical assistance so as to ensure that the law is in line with the provisions of the Convention. It is important to ensure that consultations held with representative organizations are of a non-binding nature, as there is no question of a national referendum or of a body that grants rights. COHEP has endeavoured to convey its views on this law and on the aspects that must not be left aside to safeguard the collective rights of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, thereby ensuring the legal security of investment in the country and promoting a climate of trust for indigenous peoples and investors.

We urge the Government to continue taking the necessary measures to protect indigenous peoples without leaving aside social dialogue with all the actors involved in consultation processes.

Government member, Colombia – We wish to reiterate the commitment of the Government of Colombia to compliance with international labour standards, and particularly Convention No. 169. We welcome the information provided by the Secretary of State for Labour and Social Security on the progress made in following up the observations of the Committee of Experts on the Convention. We value the efforts made by the Government of Honduras to adopt protection measures for the members of the programme for indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples (PIAH) and we encourage the Government to continue making all the necessary efforts for indigenous peoples. We place emphasis on the information concerning the establishment of 14 prevention and guaranteed non-repetition plans drawn up with the PIAH population covered by protection measures.

Prior consultation has great value as a participation mechanism that is particularly appropriate in recognizing the rights of ethnic peoples as it has a significant influence on the determination of the rights of indigenous peoples, with the effect that they are informed and involved in economic and social development policies. We therefore welcome and encourage the Government to maintain the progress in the process of approving the Bill on prior, free and informed consultation, which is under review by the various actors.

Finally, we encourage the Government to continue its efforts to give effect to the commitments derived from the Convention, with ILO technical assistance.

Employer member, Mexico – The Committee of Experts considers it to be of great importance that the law that is being adopted in Honduras is the outcome of a process of full, free and informed consultation with indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, and that guarantees are provided that these peoples are consulted and are able to participate in an appropriate manner in the process through their representative bodies. We welcome the fact that, according to the information received, such consultations have already been held, including with the participation of the United Nations, and that the legislative process for the adoption of the Bill on prior consultation in Honduras is reaching its conclusion.

We are in agreement, although the final outcome of the legislative process must be in accordance with the provisions of the Convention in ensuring that indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples are duly consulted, which must be based on the general criterion that prior informed consultation does not amount to a right of veto. The Bill must not go to the extreme of establishing that consultation is to be considered as a right of veto, which is not envisaged in the Convention.

Honduras wishes to regulate the requirement of consultation under the terms of Article 6 of the Convention. Accordingly, until the law is adopted, we agree that the Government has to focus and intensify its efforts, working closely with the ILO so that, as indicated during the presentation of the case, appropriate effect is given to the Convention. We therefore support the employers of Honduras in their interest and support for the adoption of a legal instrument in accordance with their domestic procedures which offers legal certainty and tranquillity for citizens and investments.

Interpretation from German: Worker member, Switzerland – The German Workers’ delegation as well as the IndustriALL Global Union align themselves with this statement. In recent years, Honduras has become one of the deadliest countries in the world for those who defend indigenous land rights and who organize opposition against environmentally destructive mega-projects such as mines, hydroelectric dams and logging. In addition to this violence, the indigenous communities of Honduras were particularly hard hit in November 2020 by hurricanes Eta and Iota. Sixty-three individuals lost their lives. Seven million were affected. A few weeks before that, the Government had appointed a pop singer as the new head of the Permanent Contingency Commission (COPECO), someone who, by their own admission, had no previous experience of this kind of role or of dealing with any type of emergency. The storm affected particularly the coastal areas of the country where indigenous communities are established: the Afro-Honduran Garífuna communities and the indigenous Tawahka and Miskito groups. The hurricanes worsened significantly an already dire situation of indigenous and Afro-Honduran populations who lack access to basic services, such as water and sanitation. Furthermore, according to a report published in July 2020, the reaction of the State to the pandemic had further deepened the exclusion of indigenous and Afro-Honduran communities.

We urge the Government of Honduras to take all necessary measures to reduce violence against members of the indigenous communities and their representatives, to ensure full access to essential basic services and to ensure that the state response to the pandemic does not further deepen social exclusion.

Employer member, Colombia – I would like to refer to three aspects of the case. Firstly, while the Convention does not require national regulation on prior consultation, if Honduras decides to pass legislation on its internal matters, the Government should recall that the acquiescence of the consulted communities is not a prerequisite for the adoption of a legislative or administrative decision or for the execution of a particular project or work. In its general observation on the Convention published in 2011, the Committee of Experts stated that “such consultations do not imply a right to veto, nor is the result of such consultations necessarily the reaching of agreement or consent”. Article 6 of the Convention establishes good faith as a guiding principle in prior consultation. This means that it must be conducted on the basis of mutual trust, with ample information and with a view to reaching an understanding. It is therefore important to note that reaching an agreement is not mandatory, and that the Convention only requires consultation to be carried out in pursuit of an agreement.

Secondly, I would like to highlight the progress made in Honduras as regards the workshops and consultations held with the various organizations representing indigenous and tribal populations, in order to draft the Bill. I encourage participants to make use of consultation within the parameters established by the Convention and to avoid including matters, concepts and rights that go beyond the scope of the Convention.

Thirdly, as regards mechanisms to protect the rights of the Miskito people, the Committee should take into account that progress has been made in Honduras on promoting safety and health measures in diving work. We note that mechanisms are in place to enable these communities to be informed and consulted in the development of instruments and agreements.

To conclude, firstly, while it is obligatory for the authorities to consult the communities, it is not necessarily a requirement to reach an agreement with them; secondly, we must recognize the progress and efforts made in Honduras to seek agreements in this regard. Lastly, we urge further social dialogue, with the aim of balanced implementation of the provisions of the Convention.

Worker member, Argentina – As we have heard, the situation in Honduras is grave and urgent. For several years we have been warning of the climate of anti-union violence in the country, as well as the State’s systematic rejection of the need for prior consultation. The Workers are extremely concerned at the fact that, despite the repeated pronouncements, recommendations and judgments of United Nations bodies, including the ILO and this Committee, the Honduran Government has been unable to demonstrate its serious commitment to working on and protecting the rights of indigenous peoples in the country.

For more than 20 years Honduras has failed to comply with its obligation to consult the peoples concerned through appropriate procedures and through their representative institutions each time that legislative or administrative measures that may affect them directly have been discussed. Death threats, murders and the systematic persecution of human and trade union rights defenders have become widespread. Indigenous peoples and trade unionists are among those most affected by the violence.

We hope that the Committee goes even further in its conclusions this year and makes specific and concrete recommendations. All mechanisms for consultation on legal and administrative matters that may affect the rights of indigenous peoples must seek their free, prior and informed consent in a way that allows them to share their views and influence the final outcome of the process. We must remember that the right to consultation is a human right with a specific scope for indigenous peoples. A mere information meeting at which indigenous peoples express their opinions without being able to influence the final decision does not comply with the provisions of the Convention.

The indigenous peoples in Honduras, and also across the Americas region, today demonstrate the worst socio-economic and labour indicators. Ensuring compliance with the Convention is a cornerstone of social justice.

Employer member, Guatemala – Firstly, we wish to emphasize that the main guideline for any regulation on prior consultation must be the Convention, which sets out the consultation process that must be followed in good faith and in a form appropriate to the circumstances, with the objective of achieving agreement or consent to the proposed measures. It should also be recalled that the 2011 general observation of the Committee of Experts on this Convention stated that such consultations do not imply a right to veto, nor is the result of such consultations necessarily the reaching of agreement or consent. It is well known that COHEP has repeatedly stated its interest in regulating the right to prior consultation within the standards established by the Convention.

Secondly, between 2016 and 2017, with the support of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), a process of consultation with the different representative organizations of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples was promoted to draft the text of a Bill; that process was complicated by attempts to promote, through the right to consultation, other concepts and rights that go beyond the scope of the Convention. On the basis of the conclusions of the Conference Committee, the ILO has provided guidance and technical assistance to the State of Honduras, and in 2018 the Government submitted a draft Bill on prior consultation. We believe that it is important that any specific legislation on prior consultation that is adopted should be based on the parameters established by the Convention so that the Bill under development corresponds to the guidelines and limits set out therein.

Thirdly, and lastly, we consider it necessary to recognize the progress and efforts made by the Government of Honduras, the employers and the different communities to succeed in implementing the provisions of the Convention, and to continue to improve social dialogue with the aim of achieving balance in its interpretation and application.

Worker member, Barbados – In recent decades, palm oil plantations in Honduras have expanded at a breathtaking speed, leaving behind deep socio-environmental impacts on the rural black population and in particular the Garífuna indigenous people, claiming their legitimate rights to land, food and a decent life. The Garífuna are the largest ethnic group in Honduras. They are the descendants of African populations from the Caribbean island of St Vincent, who were exiled to the Honduran coast in the eighteenth century, but they are under threat.

Honduras today has more than 193,000 hectares of palm oil plantations. This land grab has brought the devastation of forests, wetlands and the contamination of water sources due to the use of agrochemicals. It is estimated that more than 70 per cent of all Garífuna territories are already surrounded by palm oil plantations. Many ancestral communities have already disappeared and 38 others are on the verge of being erased forever. The Garífuna communities suffer constant harassment and extreme violence from palm oil companies and landowners under the complicit watch of local and national authorities. In the last three years, more than 40 Garífuna people have been killed and hundreds have left their communities due to widespread violence, threats and criminalization against them. One shocking case took place in July last year when five Garífuna men were abducted from their homes in the town of Triunfo de la Cruz by heavily armed gunmen in police uniforms. The perpetrators went from house to house, and forced the five young men into the vehicles at gunpoint, before speeding away. The vehicles did not have number plates, a tactic used by both state security forces and criminal gangs in Honduras. Among those abducted was 27-year-old Alberth Snider Centeno Thomas, a community leader who leads efforts to force the Government to comply with a ruling from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordering Garífunas to be compensated for stolen land. The Inter-American Court also issued legally binding titles to prevent further forced evictions that were not complied with by the Government. Up to this point, the five black indigenous men are still missing and there is reason to presume that the Government will let this case fall into impunity. This will confirm the generalized suspicion that many government authorities might be involved in these crimes in association with drug traffickers, palm oil employers and tourism developers.

Employer member, Argentina – Considering that the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean account for 15 of the 23 ratifications of the Convention, we would like to look further into two of the elements raised previously.

First, we echo the concern and rejection expressed by our colleagues of any act of violence and threats within the framework of the defence of human rights and we trust that the Government will continue adopting effective measures for the protection of indigenous and Afro-Honduran leaders. The Committee of Experts has recognized in its comments the specific measures taken by the Government, which represent progress in compliance with the obligations derived from the Convention. We hope that the conclusions of the Conference Committee will give sufficient recognition to the efforts made by the Government.

Second, with reference to the progress made in developing an appropriate consultation and participation procedure, we wish to emphasize that, in addition to the international cooperation described by the Government earlier, it is of the greatest importance to involve ILO specialists in the various processes that are being undertaken in the country. This is important both to make progress in the approval of the Bill on free and informed consultation, and most particularly for the design and holding of effective consultations involving representative organizations, based on a methodology that guarantees these processes are conducted in a balanced manner and guarantee the necessary conditions to ensure that the vision of the communities is taken into account in the analysis of the issue under consultation.

The vast experience of the ILO in the development of consultation bodies with the social partners and the quality of the Office’s specialists engaged in these subjects mean that it is the best placed partner to provide technical assistance to the Government. We trust that the Office, assuming the role of the leading agency for Convention No. 169, which rests with the ILO, will focus its efforts on providing support and encouraging the Government to comply with the obligations arising out of the Convention.

The employers of Argentina once again wish to express our conviction concerning the benefits of social dialogue and its key role in guaranteeing sustainable development and economic, social, environmental and political stability.

Observer, Single Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CUT-Honduras) – I am speaking on behalf of the Single Confederation of Workers of Honduras, the Lenca National Indigenous Organization of Honduras and the Federation of Lenca and Maya Tribes. Trade union violence is of the greatest concern. It is not generalized, but is really directed against Honduran indigenous leaders and trade unionists, aggravated by the prevailing climate of impunity. Despite the many recommendations made by the ILO, the Government has not guaranteed the right to life of indigenous leaders. In recent years, there have been multiple acts of violence, including threats to Pedro Amaya and Víctor Martín Gómez Vásquez for defending indigenous peoples, and the murder in his own home of Félix Vásquez, who was of Lenca indigenous origin and General Secretary of the Federation of Rural Workers.

There are political prisoners, such as Víctor Vásquez of the Lenca Indigenous Movement of La Paz (MILPAH), and José Santos Vigil. There are cases of forced relocation, such as in the indigenous community of Santo Tomás, where 152 persons were moved from their lands. Thirteen indigenous people were murdered in the community of Santo Tomás, Gualcince, in the department of Lempira, as well as the forced disappearance of Alberth Sneider Centeno, defender of people’s rights and Garífuna leader of the Council of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, and of three other people from the same community. We must also mention the criminalization of 13 defenders of water rights in the Guapinol and San Pedro sectors in Tocoa, department of Colón, and in Reitoca on the river Petacón, members of the Lenca National Indigenous Organization of Honduras, who have received threats for defending the rivers that run through the community, where a dam is being built without consultation.

With regard to legislation on prior informed consultation, the Government wishes to impose a Bill that is in accordance with its interests and to the benefit of national and international capital, to the detriment of indigenous and Afro-Honduran communities. The Bill has not been subject to adequate consultation and as a result is in violation of the rights of the peoples. As they have not received a response from the Government, the Lenca indigenous peoples are drawing up a Protocol for the establishment of a mechanism of free and informed prior consultation. We demand that the Bill is not adopted before consultations are held and it is discussed with the truly representative peoples.

With reference to the situation of Miskito dive-fishers, they continue to suffer from conditions of social, economic and labour abandonment. They do not have access to adequate working conditions, healthcare, social security or justice.

Government representative – The Government of Honduras thanks the speakers and takes note of all their contributions and observations in this meeting. In this regard, and given the importance of this subject, we make the commitment as the Government to send a report during the year, in consultation with the Employers’ group and the Workers’ group, with technical assistance from the ILO.

Honduras endorses the international treaties and Conventions which form part of the national legal system. This is the basis for the protection of native and indigenous groups, as referred to by the Fundamental Constitutional Charter and the supranational treaties and Conventions ratified by the Government of Honduras. The Constitution imposes on the State the obligation to issue measures to protect the rights and interests of indigenous communities in the country. The assumption of the obligation to comply with Convention No. 169, ratified by Honduras, is all the more reason to consider that the Act on prior consultation that originates from it fulfils the constitutive process for the country up to its final stage of adoption of a law and that this will be useful for overcoming the problems that its beneficiaries are facing.

Honduras has complied with the recommendations and observations that the Committee has formulated at certain times on the application of the Convention, and once again has demonstrated that it has made significant advances in line with the indications made, creating and issuing agreements and effective legal arguments and practices in light of the indications made and the needs of our society. For this reason we consider that we should not be included in the list.

We ask that these conclusions be considered by the honourable Committee.

Worker members – We thank the Government of Honduras for its comments. We also thank the other speakers who took the floor for their contributions to this discussion.

The grave denial of the rights of indigenous peoples and the constant threat and persecution they face in Honduras are deeply concerning. At least 30 defenders of environmental and human rights were murdered since we last examined the application of Convention No. 169 by the Government of Honduras in 2016. Since the military coup of 2009, over 153 land and environmental activists have been assassinated. We deplore the lack of commitment of the Government of Honduras in providing adequate protection to leaders and defenders of the indigenous peoples, which leaves them exposed to death threats, physical attacks, forced disappearances and murders. The situation can no longer be ignored by the Government of Honduras and immediate and firm action must be taken to stop the endemic violence against indigenous peoples and their defenders and to put an end to the deep-rooted impunity and climate of fear.

Furthermore, we strongly emphasize the need for the Government to establish appropriate consultation and participation procedures so as to ensure that the rights, cultures and livelihoods of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples are fully respected and safeguarded. We recall the general observation of the Committee of Experts of 2010 on the Convention, which underlines that there must be a genuine dialogue between governments and indigenous peoples characterized by communication and understanding, mutual respect, good faith and the sincere wish to reach a common accord.

In addition, special attention must be paid to the rights of indigenous peoples to land and natural resources as these are fundamental to securing the broader set of rights related to self-management and the right to determine their own priorities for developments.

Finally, coordinated programmes aimed at improving the living and working conditions of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, including the Miskito community, and their access to public services, like health and education, must be strengthened and effectively implemented and their impact must be assessed.

The Government of Honduras must be accountable for the preservation of the rights, cultures and livelihoods of the indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples. Immediate action must be taken. More specifically, the Government of Honduras must take adequate and timely preventive and protective actions to ensure the physical safety and psychological well-being of members of indigenous communities and their representatives. It must also take the necessary measures to foster a climate free from violence.

Furthermore, the Government of Honduras must conduct investigations and initiate proceedings against perpetrators and instigators of acts of violence and threats against indigenous peoples and their representatives in the context of claiming their economic, social and cultural rights. In this regard, the Government must immediately establish an independent judicial investigation into the murders of José Adán Medina and Félix Vásquez, the forced disappearances of the four young Garífuna from Triunfo de la Cruz and the murder of Berta Cáceres. The Government must report detailed information on complaints received as well as the investigations and proceedings initiated. All these actions must be buttressed by the allocation of sufficient financial and human resources.

We also call on the Government of Honduras to strengthen its efforts to engage in full, genuine and meaningful consultations and dialogue with indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples and their representative institutions, especially in the context of the adoption of the Consultation Act.

Finally, the Government of Honduras must provide effective protection for the rights of ownership and possession of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples’ lands. It must also preserve their rights to the natural resources pertaining to their lands and ensure their access to justice.

As has been indicated by the Committee of Experts and other colleagues who have taken the floor, the issues are grave. We urge the Government to accept a high-level tripartite mission of the ILO to support the Government in finding long-lasting solutions in the application of this Convention.

Employer members – We have listened to the discussion with great attention. By way of final comments, we would like to reiterate that the Convention is the only international instrument that is legally binding for the States that ratify it. In this context Honduras has the commitment to apply it and to keep the supervisory bodies regularly informed, in consultation with the most representative organizations, and hence we invite the Government to do this.

We have already said that the Convention can be an instrument for promoting social dialogue and good governance, with the institutional weight needed to promote confidence, peace and agreements with indigenous communities, only if it is applied in an appropriate and balanced manner in accordance with the actual provisions of the Convention. In this regard, we would like to invite the Government of Honduras to ensure the application of the Convention in a climate of dialogue and understanding free of violence; to ensure that the National Congress, in accordance with its internal procedures and without interference, but bearing in mind that the consultation process was already aborted, to adopt the Bill on prior consultation without delay, in consultation with the social partners and in accordance with the Convention itself; that it considers that, with or without legal regulation, prior consultation with indigenous and tribal peoples must be undertaken in good faith and in a form appropriate to the circumstances. To this end, we invite the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to support this process. It seems to us a little excessive and possibly premature to send a tripartite mission for this purpose. We observe that progress has been made and, this being the case, we believe that ILO technical assistance without interference from other bodies which have no competence to apply the Convention would be sufficient. We also ask the Government to continue to implement specific measures to improve the situation of Miskito dive-fishers.

Lastly, we invite the Government to continue moving forward in the matters discussed above.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the information provided by the oral and written submissions presented by Government and the discussion that followed.

The Committee took note with interest of the positive steps made on the elaboration of the draft regulatory framework for prior consultation since its last discussion of the case in 2016.

The Committee noted with concern the reported cases of murders and forced disappearances of representatives and members of Indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples.

Taking into account the discussion of the case, the Committee urges the Government of Honduras, in consultation with the social partners, to:

• ensure the implementation of the Convention in law and practice in a climate of social dialogue and understanding, free from violence and intimidation;
• conduct, without delay, independent investigations and proceedings against perpetrators of criminal acts against Indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples and their representatives;
• establish appropriate consultation and participation procedures in line with the Convention;
• implement without delay the Convention in law and practice, based on the extensive consultations held with social partners, and in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, on the requirement to consult Indigenous peoples, so that such consultations are held in good faith and in a form appropriate to the circumstances, with the objective of achieving agreement or consent to the proposed measures;
• continue to take effective measures to improve the conditions of work of Misquito dive-fishers; and
• ensure the awareness of rights and access to justice to Indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples.

The Committee requests that the Government avail itself of ILO technical assistance in implementing these conclusions.

The Committee requests that the Government submit information to the Committee of Experts at its next session in 2021 on the progress made in the implementation of the Convention in law and practice.

The Committee calls upon the Government to accept an ILO direct contacts mission.

Government representative – We reaffirm the undertaking to adopt the recommendations made in order to continue the process of application of the Convention, preserving dialogue as a means of understanding free from any manifestation of violence, using the special procedures and institutions created for this purpose.

We, the Government, with the immediacy of the case, will urge the other state authority, which has knowledge of the consultations provided for in Article 6 of the Convention, to comply with the requirement to consult the social partners on the Bill relating to prior consultation in good faith, until such time as consent is achieved.

The special committee of the National Congress of the Republic will also be requested most respectfully to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

We will report on all of the above to the Committee of Experts to give evidence of advances and legislative progress made regarding the adoption of the law and the application of the Convention through a tripartite approach involving social dialogue.

We accept and greatly look forward to the announced visit of the ILO direct contacts mission at an appropriate date and by joint agreement so that full access will be available to it.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2016, Publication: 105th ILC session (2016)



The Government provided the following written information:

The Government of Honduras hereby informs the Committee on the Application of Standards of the action taken in compliance with Convention No. 169, based on the observations made by the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) received on 28 August 2015 and supported by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE).

Existing initiatives for the establishment of appropriate procedures for the consultation and participation required by the Convention. Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention. Work is under way with the Inter-Institutional Technical Group on Convention No. 169, which brings together 19 Government institutions, to prepare, implement and monitor a legal instrument on consultation. An initial draft framework Bill on prior, free and informed consultation of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples has been prepared, and since 27 May the process has entered the phase of dialogue with indigenous peoples, so that it can then be the subject of dialogue with private enterprise and workers’ associations.

Progress made in the process of regularizing and issuing land title and the surface covered by the land titles issued. Article 14. Lands: Process of regularization in two cases: (a) in the case of Auka, an Intersectoral Committee has been established. It has requested the National Agrarian Institute (INA) to conduct an evaluation of the useful improvements made by non-Misquito peoples for an amount of 1,251,357 lempiras; and (b) in the case of Triunfo de la Cruz, the ruling is final. The INA must demarcate the title areas, and there must be a process of integration between the Garífunas and the peoples within the area. A time frame of two years is set for this work.

Summary of land titles granted during 2015–16: (a) areas for which title has been granted in one indigenous community in Guachipilin, with a total of 1,445.74 hectares covered by land title; (b) areas bought for three communities – Chortí, Plan de Perico, Carrizalon and Chonco: total of 123.55 hectares bought; and (c) areas for which titles are being processed in 2016 in three indigenous communities: total of 93,852.12 hectares to be covered by titles.

Manner in which consultations have been held with the peoples concerned prior to undertaking or authorizing any programme for the exploration or exploitation of the resources pertaining to their lands. Article 15. Natural resources: In the Mosquitia maritime area, with a view to undertaking hydrocarbon exploration, a consultation process was initiated during the period from September to November 2013; ten consultation assemblies were held with the Mosquitia territorial councils. The practice of prior, free and informed consultation has been in place since 2011. Initially it applied to hydroelectric projects located in the Lenca indigenous area (Intibucá and La Paz), covering the Gracias a Dios department and the Awuas, Tikiuraya, Mocorón, Auka, Tipi Lalma, Kukuta, Yahurabila, Raya, Wampusirpe, Barra Patuca, Belén, Brus Laguna and Puerto Lempira communities.

Application of the General Mining Act and procedures established to ensure the right to consultation where the interests of indigenous peoples are likely to be prejudiced. Mining: With respect to mining, the General Mining Act entered into force on 23 April 2013, and concessions granted since that date are still in the exploration phase. None of them is in areas where indigenous peoples or Afro-descendants would be affected. The Act sets out, in Chapter II, Exclusion Zones for Mining Rights, section 48(d), those zones declared to be national heritage sites and zones that UNESCO has declared to be world heritage sites, and in section 50 it establishes the tenure system for land ownership, where it provides that property pertaining to or covered by an international convention or treaty on the rights of indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants must not be affected. Section 67 of the General Mining Act provides that, prior to any decision to grant a concession for exploitation, the mining authority shall make a request to the relevant municipal corporation and the population and must hold a public consultation within no more than six days. The decision taken in the consultation is binding for the granting of an exploitation concession.

Protection in relation to conditions of employment and contracts, and adequate labour inspection of dive-fishing. Articles 20, 24 and 25. Protecting the rights of the Misquito people: Vulnerable groups of disabled Misquito divers who have suffered decompression accidents are dealt with by the Inter-institutional Commission to Address and Prevent the Problems relating to Dive-fishing. Work is under way on the following activities, among others: Preparing the document “Care protocol for decompression patients”, which is at the stage of being signed; on labour matters, dialogue has been held on reforms to the health and occupational regulations on underwater fishing, which is at the stage of the implementation of the Ministerial Order issued by the Department of Labour; A programme of grants for the children of divers with disabilities, covering 33 beneficiaries, is currently being implemented; a project to build 98 homes for divers with disabilities is under way: the overall investment is currently being approved through Convivienda; establishing a trust and identifying productive projects that are generating moderate levels of employment: the Kaukira and Kauma fishers’ union multiple services enterprise, which directly benefits 53 families.

Report in response to the observations of the Single Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CUTH): “The case of the Tolupan people”. Special report by the inter-institutional technical group on Convention No. 169 and free, prior and informed consultation. There is a Government version of the initial draft Bill on prior, free and informed consultation, which has been revised and approved by the Ministry of Labour. It will be submitted for consultation to all indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples and their organizations, with support from the ILO as an observer, and technical and financial assistance from the UNDP ProDerecho project. The first part of the timetable is:

Date	Place	Indigenous or Afro-Honduran people
27 and 28 May	Catacamas	Pech
30 and 31 May	Juticalpa	Nahua
6 and 7 June	Santa Rosa de Copan	Maya, Chortí

Urgent review of concessions granted without free, prior and informed consultation. In March 1994, the First Regulations of the National System of Environmental Impact Assessment (SINEIA) were issued. These have been supplemented several times. SINEIA 2009 (Decision No.189-2009) officially establishes the consultation mechanism for environmental licensing processes, in which there was no opposition to the establishment of the requirement from the beginning of publication, both in writing and over the radio, with a view to making the development of a project public knowledge. In summary, consultations have been held in accordance with environmental law and the specifics of each project that may be granted a concession as part of these processes.

Urgent revision of concessions granted following free informed prior consultation which are causing damage. In this regard, every registered project file concludes with a decision of acceptance or rejection. If it is viable, the environmental control measures are determined, which have to be implemented by the project proposers or concession holders. In the event of non-compliance, financial administrative penalties exist, ranging from loss of the concession to temporary or permanent closure, depending on the degree of non-compliance.

Compensation for environmental damage, and investigation and penalization of those responsible. MIAMBIENTE has various mechanisms, such as the environmental complaint procedure, the “secure complaints mailbox”, the Line 130 “Your voice counts”, the Inter-institutional Environmental Task Force (FTIA), the Transparency Office, the Complaints System of the Prosecutor’s Office, and the online file consultation procedure (SICU), through which any individuals who feel that they have been affected can have access to the institution to assert their constitutional right of petition and report the relevant facts.

Information on the 18 Tolupan members of San Francisco de Locomapa and their families. On 19 December 2013, by Decision No. 12/2013, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) ordered precautionary measures MC 416-13 for 18 members of the “Dignity and Justice” Movement of the Locomapa Indigenous Community and their families, a total of 38 persons, who were victims of threats to their lives in relation to the murder of Ricardo Soto Medina, Armando Funes Medina and María Enriqueta Medina, members of the Tolupan indigenous community on 25 August 2013 in San Francisco de Locomapa. On 30 August 2013, the court of the city of Yoro, in case 90-2013-7D, issued a warrant for the arrest of Selin Eliazar Fúnez Bonilla and Carlos Roberto Varela Luque for the murder of these indigenous persons. On 22 February 2014, the precautionary measures ordered by the IACHR were implemented with a view to ensuring the return to their communities of the persons who had left their homes on account of the alleged threats. In this connection, a committee was formed composed of a number of state bodies, including the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, the Office of the Public Prosecutor and of the Special Prosecutor for Ethnic Issues, the Secretariat of Human Rights, Justice, Internal Affairs and Decentralization, and the Secretariat of Security through the Department of Human Rights.

General report on the death of environmental leader Berta Cáceres. Background. Prior to this deplorable act, in February 2014, a request was submitted to open a Permanent Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights in Honduras, with a view to contributing to improving the human rights situation in the country. The agreement regarding the opening was formalized on 4 May 2015, as a result of which the appointment of the country representative is now pending. Berta Cáceres Flores was a leader of the Lenca indigenous community, one of the largest ethnic groups in the country. In 1993, she co-founded the Civic Council of Peoples’ and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH) to combat the privatization of rivers and the hydro-electric dam projects with foreign investment. In 2015, she was the winner of the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize. On 3 March, she was murdered in her home, having previously received various threats.

Murder of the environmental leader. This appalling murder was committed at the leader’s home in the El Líbano residential area, which has its own security system. However, according to the Secretariat of Security, this was a different address from that agreed as the location for Cáceres to receive protection, which was originally in the El Calvario district. The investigation found that in the early hours of the morning a vehicle had parked opposite the residence where the crime was committed and sped away several minutes later.

Investigation. The President of the Republic, Juan Orlando Hernández, has stated emphatically that the murder of Berta Cáceres, a leader who had distinguished herself at the national and international levels and had fought courageously for Honduras, constituted a direct crime against Honduras and a major blow to the Honduran people. All of the Honduran security forces took action as soon as the murder became known. The national police, the teams of the Director of Intelligence and Investigations, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Technical Agency for Criminal Investigation and the Director of Police Investigations are all engaged in identifying the perpetrators and bringing them to justice. The investigation is under way and will be reinforced as much as necessary. The President of the Republic has instructed the Secretariat for Security to put the Violent Crimes Unit onto the case and to work in coordination with it, possibly with the support of other countries that wish to help it identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice. The Special Investigator for Ethnic Affairs is leading the process of taking statements and conducting its own investigation. A team of experts from the United States has joined the investigation. On 6 March, on behalf of the State of Honduras, the President of the Republic requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to support the entire investigation into Berta Cáceres death. An affirmative reply was received from the OHCHR on 11 March, with an undertaking to provide technical advice in accordance with its methodology and mandate.

Results. On 2 May, the Public Prosecutor’s Office apprehended five suspects in this abominable crime, including its intellectual and material instigators, who by court ruling have been placed in preventive custody in the National Penitentiary. Judging from the scientific evidence compiled so far, it is likely that the remaining suspects and instigators will be definitively identified and detained and that the circumstances surrounding this horrendous crime will be clarified.

Conclusions. In addition to opening a Permanent Office of the OHCHR in Honduras, the Government has demonstrated its commitment to human rights through its promotion of the National Human Rights Policy and Plan of Action, which in recent years it has pursued with dedication as a matter of priority. In addition, it has opened its doors to systematic monitoring of human rights in the country by inter-American and universal bodies. The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) second cycle in 2015 and the adoption of its recommendations is further evidence of the commitment of Honduras in this area. The ILO and both national and international public opinion are being kept informed of developments in the investigation, which the competent courts have declared to be of a confidential nature.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative drew the attention of the Committee to the information provided in the written statement.

The Employer members emphasized that the Committee was examining for the first time the application by Honduras of this Convention, which it had ratified in 1995. Moreover, there had not been to date, registered any representations under article 24 of the ILO Constitution. They said that over the 20 years that the Convention had been in force, the Government had not been able to implement the necessary regulations on prior consultation, which was at the heart of the Convention. They noted with concern that certain government officials and indigenous leaders considered that prior consultation had a binding effect and that it bestowed a right of veto. This interpretation had led to the use in elections of community decision-making mechanisms contained in municipal laws allowing for decisions to be taken at this level. They affirmed that the concepts and mechanisms previously referred to were diametrically opposed to the spirit and letter of consultation within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention, namely through appropriate procedures, and in particular through the representative institutions of the indigenous peoples, in good faith and in a form appropriate to the circumstances. Prior consultation therefore consisted of an exercise of dialogue carried out with the aim of reaching agreements on those issues which were likely to directly affect indigenous peoples. They said that the absence of legislation which adequately set out the form of the consultation process on the basis of the above points, resulted in errors, as previously indicated, generated a lack of certainty, acted as a disincentive to productive investments, and caused the arbitrary failure to grant mining permits across the country. National legislation should place particular importance on implementing Article 15 of the Convention, which regulated the right of indigenous peoples to the existing natural resources and their participation in their use, management and conservation. In Honduras, both the subsoil and the water, and to a certain extent the forest resources, were by law the property of the State. Thus, and in conformity with the above provision, indigenous peoples should receive fair compensation for any damages which they might sustain as a result of such activities. On that basis, the Employer members considered it imperative that the Government, in consultation with the social partners, should in good faith regulate consultations to be held in conformity with the Convention.

The Employer members said that they had been informed by the employers’ organization of Honduras of the hiring of a greater number of labour inspectors in the coffee growing and Misquito regions in the country with a view to ensuring better working conditions for workers covered by the Convention. With regard to Misquito divers, who worked in the informal economy and lacked minimum occupational safety conditions, the Employer members emphasized the need to develop vocational training programmes and occupational safety and health programmes, and to consider establishing health centres in the region. They also indicated that they had been informed of recent reforms to the social security system, the first level of which was being made universal, which would enable coverage of the entire Honduran population, including indigenous peoples. They commended the granting of titles to lands between 2012 and 2015 for the benefit of the Lenca, Chortí, Misquito and Garífuna peoples, as well as the inter-community land title process for the Misquito people.

Finally, they raised questions concerning the request by the Committee of Experts to the Government in relation to Article 15 of the Convention. Referring to the difficulties caused by similar statements in the 2009 report of the Committee of Experts, they were of the view that it was not within the mandate of the Committee of Experts to request information on the manner in which consultations were held prior to undertaking or authorizing any programme for the exploration or exploitation of existing resources.

The Worker members emphasized that, since the 2009 military coup d’état in Honduras, death threats, murders and the systematic persecution of human rights defenders and trade unions had become widespread. After her visit to the country in November 2015, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples had expressed her deep concern “about the general environment of violence and impunity affecting many indigenous communities”. Observing that a fundamental problem faced by indigenous peoples was the lack of full recognition, protection and enjoyment of their rights to their ancestral lands, territories and natural resources, the Special Rapporteur had stated that “[e]ven in cases when indigenous peoples have titled lands, these are threatened by competing and overlapping titles to third parties, natural resource development projects in the extractive and the energy sectors, charter cities, tourism projects and protected areas”. The Worker members expressed regret at the murder of Berta Cáceres, an environmental activist and indigenous leader of international renown, recognized for her struggle to defend the Lenca people against the Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam project, funded by the Council of Indigenous and Popular Organizations of Honduras (COPINH). Noting that three other COPINH activists had also been murdered, they recalled that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had asked the Honduran State to guarantee protection for Berta Cáceres, as well as the safety of other members of COPINH who had received numerous documented threats. Similarly, they reaffirmed that the attacks on the Lenca people were part of a pattern of generalized violence directed against many other indigenous peoples in the country. In recent decades, the accelerated process of expanding palm oil plantations had had profound social and environmental repercussions for the rural Afro-Honduran population, as well as for the indigenous Garífuna people, who represented the largest ethnic minority in Honduras, with many disputes arising as a result. They recalled, for example, that in August 2015 a police contingent had invaded the territory of the Garífuna community in Nueva Armenia, arresting 40 people and bringing legal action against some 80 members of the indigenous community for “land seizure”. According to witnesses present, palm oil producers had burned down 11 homes. Some months later, a group from the same community had been the victim of an armed attack by unknown perpetrators. In addition, in May 2015, Garífuna leader Jessica García had been the victim of an attempted kidnap. In December 2015, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had found Honduras responsible for violations of the right to consultation in respect of Garífuna communities in two cases. The Worker members regretted that large-scale mining projects had become a considerable threat to the full exercise of the rights enshrined in the Convention. In 2003, the entry into force of the General Mining Act had lifted a moratorium of seven years on any new mining projects in response to the pressure of public opinion, completely marginalizing indigenous peoples. More than 20 sections of the General Mining Act violated the laws and Constitution of Honduras, as well as various treaties ratified by the Honduran State, including the Convention. For example, only the communities affected needed to be consulted before an extraction licence could be granted, which ran counter to the constitutional principles of popular sovereignty, self-determination of peoples and participatory democracy. This also undermined the indigenous rights enshrined in the Convention and in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the right to free, prior and informed consultation, the right to oppose unwanted projects and the right to organize through their own representative bodies. Moreover, under the Mining Act, prior consultation of all communities concerned within the entire area affected by a project was not required. Furthermore, the Act imposed restrictions on public participation and contradicted provisions on environmental conservation by prohibiting the creation of zones free of mining exploitation for a specific period. They expressed profound regret that, despite repeated calls, recommendations and rulings from the Inter-American system and United Nations bodies, including the ILO, the Government had not demonstrated its commitment to dealing with issues affecting the country’s indigenous peoples. They supported the request by the Committee of Experts for information to be provided concerning a range of pertinent issues and urged the Conference Committee to make specific recommendations regarding the application of the Convention, including specific protection mechanisms for those defending the rights of indigenous peoples and the peoples themselves.

The Employer member of Honduras recalled that the COHEP had indicated in its observations accompanying the report on the application of the Convention that, for the National Congress of Honduras to adopt any legal instrument, the participation of the social partners, and particularly that of employers, would be necessary. Furthermore, the concept of “free and informed prior consultation” had been misinterpreted in cases where it had been considered to include the right of veto or to be binding on the administrative or judicial authorities in their decision-making. On the other hand, he recalled that, in accordance with the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), employers had to be included in the legislative consultation process and that it was necessary to ensure that procedures were appropriate, public, transparent and initiated by the State, and that all the relevant actors participated. Dialogue and public consultation processes currently took the form of open consultations in the municipalities, but there was no law governing the procedure across the whole country, which created legal uncertainty and insecurity concerning state and municipal property, on the one hand, and private property, on the other. He welcomed and praised the Government for the land titles it had issued to indigenous, Afro-Honduran and Ladino peoples, as well as to other people across the country, through the Property Institute and the National Agrarian Institute.

Concerning the observation of the Committee of Experts on the application of Article 15 of the Convention, he recognized the need to define in advance the procedure in law. As few mining companies had arrived in the country, small-scale mines had proliferated. The application of the General Mining Act currently in force was rigorous and costly. Licences were not always granted, and even with a licence some uncertainty remained because public officials did not always respect deadlines and conditions once contracts had been signed. Emphasizing that the consultations held on the Convention were not pro forma, he reiterated that they did not imply a right to veto and that the obligation to guarantee adequate consultations lay clearly and explicitly with governments, and not with individuals or private enterprises. With respect to the application of Articles 20, 24 and 25 of the Convention, the Government had approved and brought into force on 4 September 2015 a social protection framework law which provided for universal coverage for all citizens. This would be reflected in the new Social Security Act and the National Health System Act, both of which were currently being examined by the Economic and Social Council (CES), a tripartite dialogue body. Recognizing the need for the Convention to be applied correctly and for ILO technical cooperation for this purpose, he called for the adoption of a law on prior consultation which set out clear and transparent procedures, to be followed in good faith, taking into account the specific conditions of the country.

The Worker member of Honduras said that no proper measures had been adopted since 1995 to ensure the effective application of the Convention. He denounced the fact that lack of protection and respect for the rights of indigenous peoples had given rise to countless socio-environmental disputes, many evictions from land and the persecution and murder of indigenous leaders. The development policy of the State of Honduras prioritized investment in the extractive and hydroelectric industries at the expense of violations of the rights of indigenous peoples, the destruction of the environment, the violation of human rights and the persecution and criminalization of indigenous leaders. There were many cases that demonstrated the systematic violation of the rights of indigenous peoples and the lack of application of the Convention. He referred to the process that led to the adoption of the Property Act in 2004, in the absence of appropriate consultation of the indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples. That Act allowed the cancellation of community titles issued by the State of Honduras and had been used to split up community territories. He referred to the rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the cases Garífuna community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members v. Honduras and Punta Piedra Garífuna community and its members v. Honduras, in which the State had been found guilty. Furthermore, the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples highlighted the critical situation of the indigenous peoples of Honduras in unequivocal terms. He observed that some cases had not even been of public knowledge, such as the approval of the Masca hydroelectric dam without consultation, the disregard of the consultation held with the Garífuna community concerning the Property Act, the declaration of the Cayos Cochinos as a protected area without consultation, the construction of the Patuca III hydroelectric dam without consultation and the preliminary draft of the law on consultation which had deliberately excluded representative indigenous organizations.

Regarding the alarming and generalized situation of persecution and criminalization of defenders of the indigenous peoples, he said that the murder of Ms Berta Cáceres was a landmark case. Ms Cáceres had been persecuted and prosecuted, and had received death threats on many occasions. At the time of her death, she benefited from protective measures which had been requested by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The situation of Ms Cáceres, as well as the violations of the human rights of 13 Tolupan tribes and other Garífuna and Lenca communities, had already been brought to the attention of the ILO in 2015. He profoundly regretted the deaths of Maria Enriqueta Matute and of Nelson García, Armando Fúnez Medina, Ricardo Soto Fúnez, Luis Reyes Marcia and Erasio Vieda Ponce, leaders and members of indigenous communities. He observed that over the past ten years at least 111 environmental activists had been murdered for defending indigenous and Garífuna communities. In his view, the level of corruption and ineffectiveness of the justice system made it impossible to guarantee the protection of human rights activists. He expressed the hope that the Conference Committee would reach conclusions that would enable the Government to adopt measures urgently to put an end to the grave situation of widespread violation and impunity (including the establishment of specific protection mechanisms for the defenders of indigenous peoples’ rights) and to ensure complete observance of the Convention, with the full participation of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations. In coclusion, he called for an ILO mission to visit Honduras with a view to monitoring and verifying compliance with the relevant agreements.

The Government member of Mexico, speaking on behalf of the group of Latin American and Caribbean (GRULAC) countries, thanked the Government for its report on Convention No. 169. He regretted the violent death of the environmentalist leader Berta Cáceres and urged the Government to continue its efforts to solve the crime. He also noted with interest the report on the investigation into the facts and recognized the progress made, which had not been reflected in the report of the Committee of Experts. He noted with interest the efforts made to adopt a consultation procedure rapidly, as well as the Bill on which consensus was already being sought with organizations of indigenous peoples, private enterprises and workers. He recognized the Government’s efforts for the distribution of land ownership, the application of the Mining Act, the protection of the Misquito people and social security for indigenous peoples.

The Government member of Panama said that his country endorsed the statement made by GRULAC and the report submitted by the Government of Honduras. He noted the efforts made and commended the drafting of a bill, which was in the process of being agreed to with indigenous organizations, employers and workers. He congratulated the Government on granting title for over 1 million hectares of land, benefiting 9,459 families and 175 communities. He also congratulated the Government on keeping the channels of consultation open, including the Inter-institutional Commission to Address and Prevent the Problem of Dive-fishing (CIAPEB). As pro tempore chair of the Council of Ministers for Central America and the Dominican Republic, he reiterated his Government’s concern at the inclusion of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador in the list of individual cases. He considered that objective and transparent selection criteria were lacking that would allow the reasons for their inclusion to be identified, especially when the regional distribution revealed an imbalance in comparison with individual cases from other regions.

The Worker member of Colombia noted that the obligation of prior consultation was not effectively applied in Honduras, and that there was no direct connection between environmental licences issued and the prior consultations held. In Latin America, disputes concerning the exploitation of natural resources on indigenous land were becoming ever more frequent. States granted extraction companies concessions to operate on land belonging to indigenous peoples without taking into consideration the manner in which such activities affected those peoples’ way of life. Countries such as Honduras claimed that investments in mining and oil, for instance, contributed to national development, yet indigenous peoples rarely saw the benefits. In the case of Honduras, there were at least three characteristics that the Committee should not overlook: (i) the binding nature of Convention No. 169 was being challenged; (ii) laws on prior consultation were being drafted without true participation by indigenous communities; and (iii) the human rights of environmental leaders were constantly being violated. He expressed deep concern regarding the death of indigenous leader Berta Cáceres and the constant persecution and deaths of human rights leaders in Honduras. He urged the Government to comply with the Convention and protect the lives and physical integrity of indigenous leaders.

The Worker member of Uruguay expressed solidarity with the Honduran people in the light of the grave accusations made. He condemned the murder of Berta Cáceres and recalled that one of her great struggles had been defending Lenca territory through respect for the consultations envisaged in Convention No. 169 and the application of the Convention. He emphasized that prior consultation meant taking the opinions of civil society organizations into account. He added that extraction policies and so-called “charter cities” had been imposed in Honduras without consultation and in the most deregulated manner. He referred to reports of corruption in the police and armed forces, the murder of more than 100 social campaigners in recent years, the fact that some neighbourhoods and towns were in a state of utter abandon and the constant criminalization and persecution of union leaders.

The Government member of Norway noted that there seemed to be uncertainty concerning appropriate procedures for the consultation and participation required by the Convention. Therefore, recalling that Norway had been the first country to ratify Convention No. 169, he shared some of the experiences of his country, in particular the establishment in 1989 of the Sami Parliament as the representative political body of the Sami people, the indigenous people of Norway. He said that the Government and the Sami Parliament had agreed on procedures on how to carry out consultations in accordance with the Convention and that the Government had issued procedures for consultations by state authorities with the Sami Parliament, which were framed within the context of Norway’s obligations under the Convention and respected indigenous peoples’ substantial rights, including the right to land. Explaining that consultation was conceptualized as a continuous process through the establishment of regular and institutionalized dialogue mechanisms between the State and the Sami Parliament on various issues that might affect Sami interests, including competing use of land and land rights, he said that such an approach gradually built up trust and fostered collaborative relations. While acknowledging that agreement between the Sami Parliament and the Government was not always reached, he emphasized that the consultation mechanism enabled the Sami Parliament to strengthen its position as a representative and competent voice of the Sami people and ensured that that decision-makers were well acquainted with the views of the Sami Parliament. He expressed the hope that the experience of Norway would inspire other countries to ratify and implement Convention No. 169.

The Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela considered that the application of the Convention should not be limited to certain articles that suited the convenience of national and transnational private enterprises with the support of the Honduran Government. Consultation could not be ignored as a mechanism to enable indigenous peoples to take decisions concerning the land pertaining to them, and their use. The COHEP was endeavouring, with the support of the Government, to establish a law that flew in the face of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and dismissed Convention No. 169, with the objective being to take ownership of appropriating the resources in the 1,032,793.18 hectares belonging to the Lenca, Chortí, Misquito and Garífuna people. In addition, he condemned the persecution, torture, disappearance and murder of indigenous and social leaders, such as Berta Cáceres. He requested the Committee to send an ILO mission to monitor the implementation of the Convention.

The Worker member of the United States explained that, as part of a delegation of the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas visiting Honduras shortly after the assassination of Berta Cáceres, he had witnessed the lack of will on the part of the Government to build trust and dialogue with indigenous communities. In violation of Honduran law, the Office of the Public Prosecutor had even ignored over a dozen legal filings by victims and their families. Since the 2009 coup d’état, the level of violence, corruption and distrust had prevented the consultation and consensus-building required by the Convention, which should include participation in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programmes affecting the communities. There was however consensus on the urgent need for a law to apply the Convention, and two bills were currently before Congress. They provided an opportunity for the Government to begin constructing peace and reducing conflict. The ILO could assist in the process to ensure that it was in conformity with there requirement for consensus and respect for indigenous communities, in accordance with the Convention.

The Employer member of Chile reiterated the call made by the COHEP for the Honduran Government to introduce prior consultation with indigenous peoples and social actors and establish a legal framework to govern consultation with indigenous peoples, as provided for in the Convention. He believed that this would contribute to the recognition of the rights and obligations of all the parties involved in the application of the Convention, which would have positive consequences for the sustainability and legal security of investment projects. He recalled that any regulations must categorically establish that the obligation to hold consultations with indigenous peoples lay with the State, clearly providing that consultations must be held in good faith, with proper information and with the objective of reaching agreement, but without the result of the consultations being binding. He observed that the Convention should be a tool for social dialogue with indigenous peoples, and it was necessary to reset the temptation to use it for purposes other than those for which it was intended. He expressed concern at the request by the Committee of Experts for information on consultations held prior to the implementation or authorization of programmes involving the exploration or exploitation of resources pertaining to the lands of indigenous peoples, which exceeded its mandate. He recalled the difficulties that had arisen when the 2009 report of the Committee of Experts had been published. Lastly, he recalled that it was necessary to advance through dialogue towards giving effect to the Convention, which would constitute the best guarantee of its provisions being interpreted and applied in a balanced manner.

The Worker member of Spain said that the Government was seriously and systematically failing to comply with the Convention. Indigenous communities were regularly subjected to exploitation, repression, lack of access to justice and the occupation of their land without their free consent. Their representatives were victims of threats, violence, criminalization and murder. Since the military coup in 2009, the situation had become more widespread and had only deteriorated. At the same time, greater protection was being given to the interests of transnational enterprises that promoted hydroelectric, mining, forestry and agricultural projects, despite the fact that they did not respect the legitimate interests of indigenous peoples. The case of the murder of Berta Cáceres, an internationally recognized defender of human rights and the environment and an indigenous leader, was symptomatic. She had been murdered in March 2016 after fighting for many years against the construction of the Agua Zarca dam in the Gualcarque River. Those responsible for her murder remained unpunished, as did those responsible for the murders of other indigenous leaders. The case of the Agua Zarca dam was a clear example of the persecution and criminalization of pro-indigenous activism and the manner in which indigenous peoples were not consulted on projects that affected their land. It was necessary to eliminate privilege, favourable treatment, non-transparency and restrictions on democracy in order to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for human rights violations. She urged the Committee to help ensure that Honduras gave immediate effect to the Convention.

The Government member of the Dominican Republic endorsed the statements of GRULAC, the Council of Ministers of Central America and the Dominican Republic. She expressed support for the report provided by the Government on the Convention. She recognized the efforts that the Government was making to guarantee protection for fundamental rights at work and social security for indigenous peoples. She expressed regret at the death of environmental leader Berta Cáceres and urged the Government to continue its efforts to guarantee respect for international labour standards. She called on the Government, workers, employers and indigenous peoples to join forces for this purpose.

The Government member of El Salvador supported the statement of GRULAC and expressed appreciation of the report presented by the Government on the Convention. She welcomed the information provided, which demonstrated the Government’s will to establish in the near future an appropriate consultation procedure, as shown by the Bill, on which a process of consultation had commenced with indigenous peoples organizations, private enterprise and workers. She noted with appreciation the indication by the Government that it would continue its efforts towards compliance for the clarification and granting of land title, the application of the Mining Act, the protection of the Misquito people and the provision of social security for indigenous peoples.

The Government representative referred to the progress that had been reported to the Committee of Experts. He also referred to the creation of a trust for productive projects, the development of a protocol for the treatment of divers suffering from the effects of decompression and the dialogue on reforms to the regulations on occupational safety and health in dive-fishing. He recalled that a Bill on free informed prior consultation was before each of the indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples for consultation, and that employers and workers would then be consulted. He requested ILO technical assistance for that purpose. He reiterated that his Government condemned the murder of Berta Cáceres and he expressed condolences to her family and the Honduran people. He emphasized that acts of violence were not and would not be tolerated, in particular against human rights defenders. He recalled that judicial officials had reacted swiftly and decisively in the case of Berta Cáceres, instigating the detention and prosecution of the alleged perpetrators. He noted that the State of Honduras had demonstrated its commitment to human rights protection by adopting the national human rights policy and action plan and requesting the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to open a country office. He also noted the successful social dialogue on, for example, the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), and he invited employers’ and workers’ organizations to discuss an action plan for the application of the Convention in the Economic and Social Council.

The Worker members said that Honduras was living under the constant threat of death. Social and union leaders were murdered and persecuted, and the situation was worse for indigenous peoples. There was a situation of violence perpetrated by the State and by individuals protected by the police, with no guarantees for the rights or the lives of victims, or their families. Private enterprises threatened the lands of indigenous peoples, and their very survival through exclusion and isolation. The Government was also complicit in seizure processes, in which indigenous peoples were denounced as seizing their own lands. Various sectors, including the palm oil industry, infrastructure construction, mining projects and individual producers, enjoyed impunity in Honduras when trampling underfoot the rights of indigenous communities. In their view, the Committee should urge the Government to take the following measures: (i) with respect to violence against indigenous peoples, guarantee the immediate launch of independent judicial investigations to identify and punish those responsible, including an independent investigation into the murder of Berta Cáceres by a group of experts under the authority of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; (ii) effectively apply the right to consultation, ensuring full and effective participation by all indigenous peoples, taking into account the indication by ILO bodies that a mere information meeting in which indigenous peoples were heard, without the opportunity to influence decision-making, did not comply with the provisions of the Convention; (iii) review all the concessions granted on indigenous territory without the prior consent of the communities affected, including for hydroelectric dams, mining operations, agribusiness and forestry megaprojects; and (iv) with technical assistance from the ILO, carry out a review of the General Mining Act with a view to making the necessary amendments to bring it into line with the Convention. Finally, they called on the Committee to consider the possibility of sending a direct contacts mission to the country.

The Employer members thanked the Government for the information provided. They considered it necessary to require the Government to take the following steps as a matter of urgency: (i) in consultation with the social actors and interested peoples, legislate the right to consultation set out in Convention No. 169; (ii) report on progress in the process of granting land title to indigenous peoples, giving details of the geographic areas allocated; and (iii) report on the programme for recruiting more labour inspectors in the coffee and Misquito zones and the results obtained in terms of improving working conditions for indigenous peoples in such zones.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed on issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee expressed concern at the lack of progress on the necessary regulatory framework for prior consultation.

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

• - ensure the implementation of the Convention in a climate of dialogue and understanding, free from violence;
• - regulate, without delay, in consultation with the social partners and in accordance with Article 6 of Convention No. 169, on the requirement to consult indigenous peoples, so that such consultations are held in good faith and in a form appropriate to the circumstances, with the objective of achieving agreement or consent to the proposed measures. To this end, the Government can avail itself of technical assistance from the ILO;
• - inform the Committee of Experts at its next session on the progress made in the implementation of the Convention in law and practice, including the General Mining Act.

The Government representative took note of the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations and said that they would be transmitted to the highest authorities so that they could be implemented as soon as possible.

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

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

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Scope. The Committee notes that the Ministry of the Interior and Justice is processing the applications for legal personality filed by indigenous peoples, and indicates that 12 of them were submitted by federations and confederations. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the number of applications being dealt with, and those still being processed, specifying whether any difficulties have arisen in the procedure for granting legal personality to indigenous and “pueblos negros” and, if so, of what nature.

Articles 2, 6 and 33. Consultation and participation. The Committee notes that the National Indigenous Council of Honduras (CNIH), which constituted an attempt by federations of indigenous peoples to set up a body to represent them, was not formed and that the federations themselves opted to strengthen the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Honduras (CONPAH). The Committee requests the Government to state whether, in practice, the indigenous and “pueblos negros” of Honduras referred to by the Government in its report are represented in CONPAH and to provide detailed information on the extent to which CONPAH is representative. Should there be peoples that do not participate in CONPAH, the Committee requests the Government to consider how their participation can be ensured, and to provide information in this regard. Having noted in its observation the procedures for participation and consultation, the Committee requests the Government to provide copies of decisions, agreements and studies showing the manner in which the participation and consultation procedures are conducted in practice.

Article 7. Participation and development. The Committee notes the information sent by the Government, particularly concerning projects drawn up in the framework of the Forestry and Rural Productivity Programme, including a plan for the participation and development of the Pech and Tolupan peoples. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the participation of indigenous peoples in accordance with Article 7 of the Convention, and particularly the Pech and Tolupan peoples. It repeats its request for information on the possible impact on the Miskito and Tawahka peoples of the construction of a hydroelectric dam in the middle reaches of the Patuca river (Patuca II Hydroelectric Project).

Articles 8 and 9. Customs and customary law. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, although indigenous law exists, it is not recognized in the present legislation but is taken up in the Bill on the Comprehensive Development of Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples. The Committee requests the Government to respect the methods customarily practised by the peoples concerned for dealing with offences committed by their members, to the extent compatible with the national legal system and internationally recognized human rights and invites it to provide information on the manner in which Article 9 is applied in law and in practice.

Article 14. Land rights. The Committee notes that the Strategic Plan for the Comprehensive Development of Indigenous Peoples sums up clearly the status of the lands and territories of indigenous peoples, indicating claims, titles granted and applications for regularization. The two peoples most affected are the Chorti and Tolupan, most of whom were divested of their ancestral lands and currently have no lands of their own. The Committee also notes that under the Strategic Plan, one of the short-term priorities is the regularization and titling of lands. It notes that under the Strategic Plan, the Miskito people have received no titles and only partial usufruct of the lands claimed. The Committee encourages the Government to pursue the process of regularization and titling of lands. Please provide information on this matter, indicating the surface area of the lands subject to indigenous claims and of the land for which titles have been granted.

Articles 14, 17 and 18. The Committee reiterates its request for information on the manner in which the dispute was settled between the Tolupan people and the owners of sawmills and plantations who had appropriated their traditional forests and lands, whether legally or otherwise. It also reiterates its request for information on any cases of relocation of indigenous peoples and the scope of section 13(d) of the Agrarian Reform Act which prohibits such relocation. Please also provide information on instances of the application of Articles 17(3) and 18 of the Convention.

Article 15. Consultations and natural resources. The Committee reiterates its request for information on the manner in which consultations are carried out in practice regarding the exploitation of mining resources and practical examples of participation in the benefits referred to in this Article of the Convention.

Article 20. Conditions of employment. The Committee notes the Government’s indications regarding the preventive actions developed with the aim of promoting the application of safety measures in rural areas where pesticides are used. It also notes that the labour inspection in rural areas and indigenous communities is limited due to resource constraints. It takes note of the training activities for divers, including the “Safe Diving Basic Training” project. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide the labour inspection services with the resources necessary to fulfil their mandate and it requests the Government to provide detailed information on the conditions of work of indigenous peoples and “pueblos negros” in rural areas and in diving activities, and to indicate whether there have been any further accidents in these areas.

Part VIII of the report form. The Committee requests the Government to provide any further information regarding Part VIII of the report form.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that according to the Government, the Convention covers the various ethnic groups that lived in Honduras before colonization and also those known as “pueblos negros” (which include, among others, Afro-Hondurans and the Garifuna), who, though not originally from Honduras, live in much the same social, economic, ecological and geographical conditions. The 2001 census recorded 493,146 indigenous peoples and “pueblos negros”, accounting for 6.33 per cent of the population of Honduras. They currently account for an estimated 15.7 per cent according to the Strategic Plan for the Comprehensive Development of Indigenous Peoples. The Government indicates that the indigenous and “pueblos negros” of Honduras are: (1) Miskito; (2) Garifuna; (3) Pech; (4) Tolupan; (5) Lenca; (6) Tawahka; (7) Nahoa/Nahualt; (8) Maya Chorti; and (9) English-speaking black peoples.

Articles 2 and 33. Coordinated and systematic action. Agencies. The Committee notes that the Government, through the Ministry of the Interior and Justice (SGJ) established the Indigenous Peoples Unit (UPA), which serves as an intermediary between the Government and the indigenous and “pueblo negros” of Honduras. This unit’s mandate includes: mainstreaming and institutionalizing the issue of indigenous peoples covered by the Convention; participation in the National Advisory Board; ensuring coordination of the development processes by promoting indigenous participation; contributing to the reinforcement of representative bodies, and facilitating communications between the State and the indigenous peoples. The UPA is engaged in an ongoing dialogue with the National Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Honduras and other indigenous movements. The Committee notes that the UPA’s work in mainstreaming and ensuring participation and support to reinforce the indigenous peoples’ representative bodies could have a key role in the application of the Convention. The Committee notes, however, that it is not clear to what extent indigenous peoples participate in the work of the UPA. The Committee notes in this regard that in order to comply fully with the Convention, it is not sufficient to establish governmental bodies to liaise with indigenous peoples: it is necessary to ensure the participation of indigenous peoples in these bodies. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which indigenous peoples participate in practice in the activities of the UPA, in particular in the preparation, implementation and follow-up thereof.

Articles 2, 7 and 33. Strategic plan. The Committee notes with interest the Strategic Plan for the Comprehensive Development of Indigenous Peoples, which, as stated in its introduction, was drawn up with the participation of the indigenous peoples. It notes that the Plan and a bill now under discussion are to be the pillars of Honduras’s future policy on indigenous and “pueblos negros”. The institutional framework for the Plan provides for the management and responsibility to be shared by the political and technical representatives of the peoples covered by the Convention and the institutions of the State. After describing the current institutional framework, the Plan puts forward a proposal for the future institutional framework. Priority actions is to be implemented within five years, medium-term objectives are set for implementation in ten years, and a general, long-term objective is to be implemented over 25 years. Implementation of the Plan is to begin in 2008. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of the Plan and on the results achieved.

Article 6. Legislation. The Committee notes that the Bill on the Comprehensive Development of Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples includes important principles for implementing the Convention. The introductory part states that participation of the indigenous and “pueblos negros” in preparing this Bill was unprecedented in the history of Honduras and that the Bill gives effect to Convention No. 169. The Committee further notes that the Bill defines the concept of traditional authority. The Committee hopes that the Bill will be approved shortly and asks the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

Articles 6, 7 and 15. Consultation, participation and natural resources. The Government states that in carrying out consultations the following mechanisms are used flexibly: (1) thematic meetings with indigenous participation; (2) internal community consultation; (3) participatory evaluation meetings; (4) discussion groups on socio-environmental management; and (5) verification meetings. The Committee understands that these mechanisms are steps in the same process: proposals for action are submitted, the community analyses them, a further meeting is held to make any amendments or adjustments, and in the penultimate phase adjustments are submitted on the basis of recommendations from the communities, ways and means are discussed, agreements are reached and recorded in the form of decisions. Lastly, a verification meeting is held to carry out an audit of the previous consultation, and the written commitments arising from the strategies agreed during the consultations are set out in a comprehensible and verifiable manner. The Committee notes with interest this approach to consultations based on a process of dialogue and participation, and asks the Government to provide information on the consultations held on the basis of this procedure, together with copies of decisions, resolutions and any other material used in the various stages of the consultations.

Articles 6, 13, 14 and 33. Lands and participation. The Committee notes that one of the immediate priorities of the Government is the granting of land titles, and that the Strategic Plan indicates the status of the lands of each indigenous peoples and the action to be undertaken. It also notes with interest that the Bill aims, pursuant to section 15(g), “to guarantee the participation of the indigenous and black peoples of Honduras in the delimitation and titling of their lands”. The Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to provide in its next report practical examples of the application of this important provision.

The Committee welcomes the developments mentioned above as positive steps towards the establishment of mechanisms that could pave the way for the provisions of the Convention to be fully implemented. It notes in particular that a Strategic Plan and a Bill have been drafted on a participatory basis and that bodies for their implementation have been established. The Committee hopes that the Government will pursue efforts to strengthen these bodies and mechanisms with a view to expanding the institutional basis for participation of indigenous peoples in the development, implementation and monitoring of policies that affect them. It also hopes that the Government will be able to report on progress made in this respect.

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

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

1. The Committee notes the detailed information provided in the Government’s report, and the numerous annexes attached.

2. Article 1 (Scope of application). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report indicating the numbers of the indigenous population in the country, the procedures for indigenous peoples to obtain legal status and copies of the relevant provisions of the Act governing this procedure. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the number of applications for the recognition of the legal status by  indigenous peoples which have been processed under the above Act.

3. Article 2 (Action coordinated by the Government). In addition to the plan to establish the National Commission for the Affairs of Indigenous and Black Peoples Affairs (CONAIN), to which it referred in its observation, the Committee notes the information provided on the administrative measures to coordinate Government action on indigenous affairs and those of the black population which have been adopted by various bodies. In 1998, the Government established the Secretariat of Governance and Justice for this purpose, which since July 2000 has been coordinating with the Secretariat of Agriculture and Stock-raising. When the CONAIN is established, the Committee notes that it will be chaired by the Secretariat for Governance and Justice and that it will benefit from the participation of the secretariats and a member for each federation of indigenous and black peoples legally recognized by the State. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would keep it informed of progress in the establishment of the CONAIN and on its work once it starts operating.

4. The Committee reiterates its previous request for the Government to provide information on studies carried out comparing the socio-economic situation and/or income levels of indigenous peoples in relation to the national average for the non-indigenous population. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government on the appointment of two consultants to carry out an analysis of the ethnic groups in Honduras and it would be grateful if it would provide a copy to the Office.

5. The Committee notes the preparation of a document on the Poverty Reduction Strategy and requests the Government to keep it informed of any action taken in this context to promote the economic activities and the access to health and education services of indigenous communities.

6. Article 4 (Special measures). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the special measures taken by the Legal Office for Ethnic Groups and Cultural Heritage for the protection of ethnic minorities and to preserve the archaeological heritage of indigenous communities.

7. Article 6 (Consultation and participation of indigenous peoples). The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government in its report on the establishment in January 2002 of the National Indigenous Council of Honduras (CNIH) as a coordinating body for the participation of indigenous peoples in development plans. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the activities of the CNIH and on the measures adopted or envisaged by the Government for consultations with indigenous communities in relation to the other provisions of the Convention.

8. Article 7 (Process of development). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report on the objectives, composition and scope of the Programme for the Administration of Rural Areas (PAAR) for the reduction of rural poverty through sustainable increases in the production and the productivity of the agro-forestry sector and the reversal of the process of the deterioration of natural resources. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on the progress made through this programme in improving the situation of the indigenous population in the departments of Olancho and Yoro. The Committee also notes that the Government is supporting the promotion of tourism in the Garifuna communities. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information in its next report on the manner in which the communities concerned have participated in the preparation and implementation of the PAAR and the Coastal Project.

9. The Committee notes with interest the initiation in December 2002 of the "Our Roots Programme" to improve the living conditions of nine indigenous and black communities. It also notes the assistance provided to indigenous and black women in support of processes to promote self-management throughout the country. The Committee also notes the implementation of the Support Programme for Indigenous and Black Populations (PAPIN) to improve investment in infrastructure in their communities.

10. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in future reports on the progress made with the above projects. It also reminds the Government of the fundamental importance for the application of the Convention of the participation of the communities concerned in the preparation and implementation of these projects.

11. The Committee trusts that the Government will keep it informed in its next report of the findings of the environmental study that is being carried out to evaluate the impact on the Misquita and Tawahaka peoples of the construction of a hydroelectric dam in the middle reaches of the Patuca River (Patuca II Hydroelectric Project).

12. Articles 8 and 9 (Customs and customary laws). The Committee once again notes the information provided by the Government in its report indicating that no case has been brought to the courts concerning incompatibilities between indigenous customs and the national legislation. The Committee recalls that Article 8 of the Convention requires that ratifying States have due regard to the customs or customary laws of indigenous peoples in applying national laws and regulations. It notes the existence of a body of legislation of the Misquita people which, because it is not written down, cannot be documented. The Committee trusts that the Government will inform it of any conflict which may arise between the national legislation and the customs and customary laws of these peoples and that, wherever necessary, conciliation and consultation procedures will be used with the representatives of the peoples concerned. It also reiterates its previous request for the Government to supply copies of any provisions and administrative or judicial decisions referring to the application of indigenous customs or customary laws.

13. Article 12 (Legal protection). The Committee notes with interest the text of the framework agreement for the training of indigenous attorneys so that they can collaborate with members of the judiciary for the defence of the individual and collective interests of indigenous communities. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the results achieved.

14. The Committee reiterates its previous request to the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged in relation to the serious allegations received by the Office concerning violations of the human rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. The communications received include a letter of 15 July 1997 from the Confederation of the Native Peoples of Honduras (CONPAH), forwarded by the Office of the Honduran Minister of Labour by letter dated 20 August 1997, to which no reply has been received.

15. Article 14 (Land rights). The Committee notes the detailed description of the procedures for resolving land claims by indigenous peoples. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the manner in which these procedures have been applied in practice and the results achieved.

16. Article 15 (Natural resources). In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the participation of indigenous peoples in the process of exploiting forest resources. The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government in its last report that, by virtue of section 71 of Decree No. 104 issued under the General Environmental Act, indigenous ethnic groups shall receive special support from the State in relation to their traditional systems for the integral use of renewable natural resources. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the indigenous communities concerned participate in decisions relating to the use to be made of their natural resources and in the studies carried out to establish viability criteria as a model for sustainable development. It also requests the Government to indicate the manner in which indigenous communities participate in the decisions which, in accordance with Decree No. 238-1993, are adopted by the Office of the Attorney-General for the protection of the environment, the ecosystem, ethnic minorities and the conservation of the archaeological and cultural heritage. It reiterates its previous request for the provision of copies of studies on the environment carried out in regions inhabited by indigenous peoples. It would also be grateful if the Government would indicate the manner in which the Act establishing the Forestry Development Cooperation of Honduras provides for the "effective" participation of the representatives of indigenous peoples in decisions, including those relating to the determination of areas in which hunting is permitted or subject to permits.

17. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report on the deterioration in the environment in the Lenca territory. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged, with the participation of representatives of the communities concerned, to secure the ecological equilibrium of the areas concerned. It also notes with interest the adoption of the Decree establishing the Asangni Biosphere Reservation and the Patuca National Park, the text of which was provided with the report. The Committee further notes the programmes developed for the sustainable management and use of coniferous forests in Honduras (MAFOR) and to conserve and strengthen biodiversity in Honduras in priority areas (PROBAP) and the biosphere of the Plátano River. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress achieved and the participation of the representatives of the indigenous communities concerned in the development and implementation of these programmes.

18. The Committee notes the provisions of the General Act on Mining, and particularly those relating to the functions of the mining authority, concessions, commercialization, the establishment of servitudes and the carrying out of environmental impact studies. In the light of the above provisions of the General Act on Mining, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on any specific measures adopted or envisaged to safeguard the rights of indigenous communities to their natural resources, with an indication of whether section 15 of the Agrarian Reform Act is applicable and on any substantive measures which have been adopted for the application of article 346 of the Constitution of Honduras. The Committee also once again requests information on the participation of the peoples affected in the use, management and conservation of these natural resources, including the use of indigenous techniques and strategies for the conservation of the environment. Furthermore, please provide practical examples of any consultations held with indigenous communities when the Government has decided to exploit or award concessions in relation to the natural resources of the lands occupied or used by indigenous communities, as well as information on the participation of the peoples concerned in the benefits of the exploration or exploitation of such natural resources and on any compensation granted for damages which they may sustain as a result of such activities.

19. Article 16 (Relocations). The Committee notes the indication in the Government’s report that the ancestral land occupation rights of ethnic groups are respected and that the processes of the adjudication of land rights have not resulted in relocations of ethnic groups. It also notes that section 13(d) of the Agrarian Reform Act prohibits the relocation of indigenous peoples. The Committee notes that the above provision excludes from the agrarian reform parks, national forests, forest reservations and protected areas, among other geographical areas, but makes no reference to the lands occupied or used by indigenous peoples. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide additional information on the legal scope of this provision in prohibiting the relocation of indigenous communities which traditionally occupy or use lands that have not been legally adjudicated to them.

20. Article 19 (Agrarian programmes). The Committee notes with interest the existence of the National Local Development Programme (PRONADEL), the South-West Honduras Rural Development Project (PROSOC), and the Food Security Extension Project (EXTENSA), all of which are intended to improve living and working conditions in the rural sector. The Committee trusts that the Government will keep it informed of the progress achieved and the manner in which indigenous communities participate in the various stages of these projects and programme. It also requests information on the outcome of negotiations to promote the rural development of  Mosquitia area. The Committee also requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the action taken in the context of the Land Title Programme to improve the access to financing of small-scale agricultural producers.

21. Article 20 (Conditions of employment). The Committee reiterates its previous request to the Government to provide information on any measures adopted or envisaged to prevent discrimination in practice against indigenous peoples in the areas covered by this Article. It also once again requests the Government to provide information on the activities carried out in practice by the labour inspection services in areas where there is a concentration of members of indigenous communities in the workforce, including young members of the Misquita community engaged in diving in the sea and catching lobsters in view of the lamentable cases of divers who have remained partially or totally paralysed as a result of the failure to comply with minimum safety standards. In this respect, the Committee notes with interest the adoption of Executive Agreement No. STSS-116-01 regulating the safety and health of those working in underwater fishing and penalizing those responsible for violations. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that the above Agreement is also applied to workers whose employers do not provide them with a contract of employment and do not require the necessary medical certificates and training. It also trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to enforce with severity the liability of employers who violate the provisions of the regulations that have been adopted in view of the serious risks involved in this type of activity.

22. Article 22 (Vocational training). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the training provided by the Family Education Centres for the Development of Honduras (CEFEDEH) for the members of the Lenca and Pech communities. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the agreement concluded on 19 April 1996 with indigenous peoples, pursuant to which the National Vocational Training Institute (INFOP) undertook to implement vocational training programmes in specific areas. It also requests information on the manner in which the needs of the peoples concerned are evaluated for the purposes of determining the type of training to be provided.

23. Article 23 (Handicrafts, rural and community-based industries). The Committee notes with interest the numerous publications intended to promote handicrafts among indigenous communities in Honduras, which were annexed to the Government’s report. The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government in its report on the objectives and activities of the Programme for the Rehabilitation and Promotion of Indigenous and Traditional Handicrafts in Honduras (PROPAITH). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue providing information on the implementation of this project.

24. Article 24 (Social security). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged by the Government to ensure that the indigenous communities most affected by unemployment and precarious conditions of employment benefit from appropriate coverage in the context of the project entitled "Extension of social security coverage to the excluded and the poor".

25. Article 25 (Health services). The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government on the activities undertaken in the context of the National Programme of Care for Ethnic Groups. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the progress achieved in the implementation of the project with a view to the training of members of indigenous communities as nursing auxiliaries and on the project entitled "Intercultural Health" with a view to improving the effectiveness of the health services provided for these communities. The Committee also notes the existence of programmes to combat Chagas’ disease, malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS in the various regions. The Committee further notes with interest the implementation of the Household Food Security Programme for Health Care Managers (HOGASA) to improve health practices, maternal and child nutrition and reproductive health. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number of health centres existing in the various indigenous communities and the type of services provided.

26. Articles 26 to 29 (Education). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report on the implementation of its educational policy and strategy for members of indigenous communities. It notes with interest the Multipartite Inter-institutional Cooperation and Assistance Agreement to preserve the language and culture of the Tawahaka people. It also notes the text establishing the National Education Programme for Indigenous and Afro-Antillen Ethnic Groups in Honduras (PRONEEAAH). The Committee notes from the information provided in the annex by the Government that most indigenous groups have a high percentage of illiteracy in comparison with the rest of the national population. The Committee trusts that the Government will provide precise information on the number of schools with the capacity to provide intercultural bilingual education which have been established in the various communities. The Committee notes with interest the Accord of the Secretariat of Education authorizing special regulations for the appointment and recruitment of personnel with non-pedagogical qualifications to combat the high rates of illiteracy in rural ethnic areas. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would keep it informed of the progress made in training teachers among the members of indigenous communities and the participation of these communities in the formulation and implementation of educational programmes, and particularly the PRONEEAAH and the Tawahaka bilingual and intercultural education project (PEBIT).

27. Article 31 (Promoting the elimination of prejudices). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the educational campaigns that exist or are planned so that among all sections of the national community, and particularly in educational materials for the non-indigenous population, emphasis is placed on eliminating prejudices which may be harboured in respect of these peoples.

28. Part VIII of the report form. The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government in its report indicating that as a result of the consultation processes in the context of the Convention resulted in the establishment of  the Intersectoral Commission for the Adjudication, Extension, Validation and Protection of the Ownership of Garifuna and Misquita Lands, to which the Committee refers in its comments on the application of Article 14. The Committee reminds the Government that it may also be beneficial to consult the organizations of indigenous and tribal peoples when preparing reports on the application of the Convention. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to do so when preparing its next report.

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

1. The Committee notes the detailed information provided in the Government’s report, and the numerous annexes attached.

2. The Committee notes with interest the large volume of legislative measures and regulations in relation to indigenous peoples adopted since the last report. Despite the lack of specific legislation governing indigenous peoples, the Committee notes the allocation of responsibilities for indigenous affairs and the proposal to establish the National Commission on the Affairs of Indigenous and Black Peoples (CONAIN). Please indicate whether this body has now been established, and provide information on its activities.

3. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the draft amendment of article 107 of the Constitution, which would have allowed private individuals to acquire lands along the coast, to the detriment of the land claims of indigenous peoples, is not being pursued.

4. The Committee notes with interest that the Government ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination by means of Decree No. 61-2002, which came into force on 6 July 2002.

5. Article 14 (land rights). The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Executive Agreement No. 035-2001 establishing the Intersectoral Commission for the Adjudication, Extension, Validation and Protection of the Ownership of Garifuna and Misquita Lands, the principal objectives of which include contributing to the provision of effective guarantees of the ownership rights of the lands possessed by these peoples and which constitute their normal habitat. The Committee also notes the process of the regularization of land titles for the Garifuna, Lenca, Tolupán, Chorti and Pech communities. The Committee trusts that the Government will provide information in its next report on the outcome of the process of regularizing the land titles of the Misquita and Tawahaka and other communities. It also requests the Government to continue providing information on the action taken under the Land Title Programme.

6. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report on the proceedings relating to land claims by indigenous populations. The Committee also notes the indications provided by the Government concerning the existence of conflicts relating to land tenure between members of the Tolupán population and owners of sawmills and coffee growers who have appropriated their traditional forests and lands, whether or not through legal means. The Committee trusts that the Government will continue to provide information on this matter in its next report.

7. The Committee is addressing a more detailed request directly to the Government on certain points.

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

1. The Committee refers to its observation.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide copies of any judicial decrees or legislation relevant to the application of this Article. Please also indicate the manner in which legal personality is granted to indigenous peoples and the laws and administrative regulations governing this procedure.

3. Article 2. The Committee notes that the development and implementation of programmes for indigenous peoples is the responsibility of the Government, the National Commission for Ethnic Groups and the organizations of indigenous peoples. Please indicate the body which coordinates all the entities involved, and the manner in which it does so, and please also provide a copy of the legislation governing these entities, including, for example, the Act establishing the National Commission for Ethnic Groups and issuing its rules, with an indication of the competence of this Commission and the activities undertaken in practice.

4. Noting that the Government’s report does not in general reply to the questions raised in its previous direct request, the Committee is bound to repeat its comment, which read as follows, as from its third paragraph:

3. Article 2. The Committee notes with interest the information contained in the Government’s report on measures taken to implement the provisions of this Article, including the establishment of a bilateral commission composed of members of the Government and ethnic groups and the Accords of 19 April 1996 and 11 October 1996. The Accord of 19 April 1996 sets forth the Government’s undertaking to carry out previous commitments it made in July 1994 and July 1995. Specific reference is made in this Accord to, among other things, work to be undertaken by the Inter-institutional Commission, composed of a number of governmental agencies. Reference is also made to a transportation project and certain programmes intended to benefit the Chorti tribes. The report does not indicate how the 1994-95 undertakings, carried forward into the Accord of 19 April 1996, have been applied. The 11 October 1996 Accord supplied by the Government also refers to a number of commitments, including a programme which was initiated on 16 October 1996 entailing the granting of land to Garifuna communities and a National Agrarian Institute (INA) programme to provide agrarian technical assistance to indigenous communities.

4. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, copies of all Accords it has entered into with or on behalf of Honduran indigenous and tribal peoples and their representative organizations since the date the Convention entered into force, and to indicate the current status of the commitments undertaken in those Accords. The Government is further requested to provide information on the status of any activities undertaken by the Government-Ethnic Groups Commission relevant to the Convention, particularly the status of the draft law implementing the Convention. Finally, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide practical examples of the manner in which the peoples concerned have participated in the development of the measures referred to in the Government’s report and attached Accords.

5. The Committee notes that article 173 of the Honduran Constitution provides that "the State shall preserve and stimulate the native cultures, as well as all authentic expressions of national folklore, popular art and handicrafts". Please indicate the manner in which article 173 is implemented and enforced in practice, and provide practical examples of the application of this article.

6. With regard to Article 2(2)(c), the Government states that there are no socio-economic gaps or gaps of any other nature between the indigenous and tribal peoples of Honduras and the national citizenry. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the basis for its statements in this regard, and to state whether any studies have been done comparing the socio-economic status and/or income levels of indigenous peoples with the national average in Honduras.

7. Articles 3 and 4. The Government report states that the Accords mentioned above guarantee the improvement of education, health and the environment for indigenous and tribal peoples and guarantee their security. However, the Committee is aware of allegations that non-indigenous landowners have threatened the security of indigenous people occupying their ancestral lands. Please provide information on any special measures enacted to safeguard the persons, institutions, property, labour, cultures and environment of the peoples concerned and to indicate whether these measures have proven adequate to ensure the security of these peoples.

8. Article 6. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding its consultations with the indigenous and tribal peoples through the establishment of bipartite committees, such as the Government-Ethnic Groups Commission. Please provide additional information on the consultation activities carried out by this Commission and any other bilateral committees, as well as on the extent to which the peoples concerned have participated in the decision-making process in areas relevant to the application of the Convention.

9. Article 7. The Committee notes with interest the information supplied by the Government regarding the Accords it has signed with the peoples concerned, undertaking to grant lands and provide agricultural technical assistance, construct and improve housing, clean up the environment, improve existing systems of health and education, and strengthen the security of the indigenous communities. Please provide particulars of measures taken for the development of the regions in question, indicating the status of their implementation following Hurricane Mitch, as well as the manner in which the participation of the peoples concerned in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of these measures is ensured. The Government is further requested to provide information on whether and what environmental impact studies have been done prior to carrying out land or forestry development projects affecting lands used or inhabited by indigenous and tribal peoples, and on any specific measures taken to protect and preserve the environment of these lands.

10. Articles 8 to 10. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it respects the rights of the peoples concerned and that its national legislation does not conflict with their customs. Please supply copies of any provisions that address the application of indigenous customs or customary laws as well as any information on the manner in which account is taken of these customs or customary laws in applying national laws and regulations.

11. Article 12. In its report, the Government states that the law and the public police force protect all citizens from violation of their rights, including the indigenous and tribal peoples. The Committee notes that there is a Public Prosecutor’s Office for Ethnic Groups and a Public Defender’s Office that provides pro bono legal services for those that cannot pay for their defence. The Government’s report states that the peoples concerned may initiate whatever legal proceedings they deem appropriate and that they will be provided with the necessary interpreters, but that almost all of these peoples speak Spanish. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the activities of the Public Prosecutor’s and Public Defender’s Offices with regard to the representation of individuals or organizations that are members of indigenous or tribal peoples.

12. The Committee notes that the Office has received communications alleging certain violations of the human rights of indigenous and tribal peoples in Honduras. The communications received include a 15 July 1997 letter from CONPAH, forwarded by the Office to the Honduran Minister of Labour by letter dated 20 August 1997, to which no reply was received. In view of the grave nature of the human rights violations alleged, the Committee asks the Government to supply information regarding any specific measures it has taken to guarantee the security of the peoples concerned.

13. Articles 13 and 14. In view of the Government’s explanations of the principal types of landholding, the Committee asks the Government to provide additional information in its next report explaining the manner in which title to land is actually held by the indigenous and tribal peoples. The Committee also notes the commitments made by the Government to grant title to certain indigenous peoples to lands traditionally occupied by them, including the Garifuna, and Chorti tribes. The Committee requests the Government to provide full information on the status of the land grants it undertook to complete under its Accords with the indigenous peoples.

14. Article 15. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any specific measures taken or contemplated to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples to their natural resources, indicating the application of section 15 of the Agrarian Reform Law to this subject, if any, and any substantive measures taken to implement article 346 of the Honduran Constitution. The Committee further requests information on the participation of the peoples concerned in the use, management and conservation of these natural resources, including the use of indigenous techniques in environmental conservation strategies, and copies of any environmental studies conducted on the areas occupied by the indigenous peoples.

15. The Government’s report states that the exploitation of forests belonging to the indigenous communities is carried out by means of a usufruct granted to the Honduran Forestry Development Corporation (COHDEFOR). Please indicate whether the indigenous peoples participated in the process leading to the conveyance of the usufruct and the specific uses and activities encompassed in the usufruct. Please also supply practical examples of any consultations that may have been carried out with indigenous communities when the Government has decided to exploit natural resources pertaining to indigenous lands, as well as information regarding the participation of the peoples concerned in the benefits of exploration or exploitation of such natural resources and any compensation provided for damages sustained as a result of those activities.

16. Article 16. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply copies of any specific legal provisions prohibiting the removal of the peoples concerned from the lands they occupy without their consent and indicate the procedures established, if any, to permit participation of these peoples in any decision involving their removal from their ancestral lands. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that when indigenous peoples occupying land have been removed, they have been compensated. Please provide additional information, including copies of relevant legislation, regarding the manner in which compensation is determined, as well as examples of any instances where compensation has been paid for taking of indigenous lands.

17. Articles 17 and 18. The Committee requests information on any measures taken or contemplated to prevent the incursion into indigenous lands by non-indigenous persons, as well as to guarantee the security of the indigenous peoples occupying those lands. Please also indicate the specific civil and criminal provisions applied and provide examples of penalties imposed in the event of unauthorized intrusions upon, or use of indigenous lands.

18. Article 19. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information in its next report explaining the three sectors referred to in its report under this Article and providing additional information regarding the pending production project described, including where the project is or will be located, the persons or entities responsible for carrying out the project, the nature of the activities envisaged, and the manner in which the project complies with the Convention.

19. Article 20. The Committee requests the Government to provide information regarding any measures it has taken or contemplates taking to prevent discrimination against the peoples concerned within the meaning of Article 20(2) and (3). Please also provide information on the establishment of adequate labour inspection facilities and procedures in the areas concerned as well as on the activities of the labour inspectorate in this regard.

20. Articles 21 to 23. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s statements that, on 19 April 1996, it entered into an agreement with the indigenous peoples pursuant to which the National Vocational Training Institute (INFOP) undertook to implement vocational training programmes in specific areas, taking into account the present circumstances of those peoples. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would attach a copy of this agreement with its next report and provide additional information regarding any training given during the reporting period, specifying the areas in which training was provided and the manner in which the needs of the peoples concerned were ascertained in order to determine the type of training offered. Further, in view of the proposed amendments to article 107 of the Honduran Constitution (if it were to be approved), the Committee asks the Government to indicate whether it has taken or contemplates taking steps to provide training to the Garifuna, Misquito and other peoples inhabiting the coastal and island areas to prepare them to work in the tourism-related enterprises, in light of the possible tourist development of lands traditionally occupied by them.

21. Articles 24 and 25. The Committee notes the Government’s statements that there is a health project for indigenous and tribal peoples. The Government’s report also refers to proposals for the establishment of indigenous community health centres, 22 of which already exist, some located in the tribal territories. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information regarding these indigenous health projects. It also requests further information on the indigenous health centre programme, including locations and the types of services provided, in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch.

22. Articles 26 to 30. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s statements regarding measures taken to implement these Articles of the Convention, particularly Decree No. 93-97, which establishes the legal basis for a system of bilingual intercultural education as a means to "preserve and stimulate the native culture of Honduras". The Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information regarding the application in practice of the programme of bilingual and bicultural education, including information on the content of the programme, the manner in which it has been developed and what steps have been taken to train members of the peoples concerned as well as to promote and ensure their participation in the formulation and implementation of this programme. Please indicate what steps have been taken to ensure that the teachers in the bilingual programme are able to speak the language of the indigenous community to which they are assigned, as well as information regarding further developments in regard to the preparation and implementation of the new curriculum, including the training of teachers, the number of teachers that are members of the peoples concerned, the condition of the school infrastructure and the extent of the funds allocated to rebuild educational facilities destroyed by Hurricane Mitch. In addition, please state what measures have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that the peoples concerned have the opportunity to attain fluency in Spanish as well as to preserve the practice of their indigenous languages. Finally, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply a copy of Decree No. 93-97 as well as continuing to supply information regarding the nature and scope of the draft projects proposed to implement Article 30, indicating when any of these projects are approved and implemented.

23. Article 31. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any educational measures adopted or envisaged to eliminate prejudices that may be harboured in respect of the peoples concerned.

24. Article 33. The Committee notes that the governmental agencies responsible for administering programmes affecting Honduran indigenous and tribal peoples include the National Agrarian Institute (INA), the Honduran Social Investment Fund (FHIS), the National Autonomous University of Honduras (UNAH), which recently carried out an educational programme for the Tawakha people, the National Pedagogical University (UPN) and the Department of Health and Education. The Government indicates that these agencies have established technical teams comprised of representatives of the Government and of indigenous and tribal peoples. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information regarding the activities of these agencies and their technical teams, indicating what measures have been taken to ensure that they have the means necessary to adequately fulfil their functions.

25. Part IV of the report form. According to the report, no courts of law or other tribunals have issued any decisions relevant to the application of the Convention. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide copies of any such decisions that may be rendered in the future.

26. Part VII of the report form. The report indicates that it is a first draft but that, once it is published, the Government will provide copies to the appropriate organizations, including CTH, CONPAH and the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Ethnic Groups. The Committee requests the Government to confirm that copies of the report have been communicated to the organizations referred to in its report under this point of the report form.

27. Part VIII of the report form. The report states that the Government has not consulted organizations of indigenous or tribal peoples in the country with regard to measures taken to give effect to the Convention, or with regard to preparing reports on its application. The Committee recalls that the report form under this Convention 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. Please indicate in future reports whether such consultations have been carried out, and what the results have been.

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

1. The Committee notes the Government’s last report. It regrets to note that, in general, the Government does not reply to the questions raised by the Committee in its previous comments, nor does it attach copies of the legislation, accords and projects requested. The Committee draws the Government’s attention once again to the fact that the report does not contain detailed information on the current situation with regard to the obligations undertaken, nor does it provide a clear appreciation of the application of the Convention in law and practice. It hopes that in its next report the Government will provide the necessary information so that the Committee can undertake a detailed examination of the application of the Convention.

2. Article 107 of the Constitution. The Committee notes that the report does not contain information on article 107 of the Constitution, to which it referred in its previous observation. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether the proposal to amend this article is being maintained and, furthermore, whether legislation to implement the article has been adopted or whether there is any draft legislation to implement the article permitting the acquisition of lands along the coast by private individuals which, as indicated by the Committee, has generated opposition among indigenous groups who consider that this would damage their rights to the lands that they traditionally occupy. If such legislation has been adopted, or if draft legislation in this respect is under examination, please provide a copy and indicate the manner in which the indigenous peoples occupying the lands affected by it have been consulted.

3. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide copies of any agreements concluded with indigenous peoples in Honduras and their representative organizations since the entry into force of the Convention, and to indicate the current situation with regard to the obligations deriving from such agreements.

4. The Committee recalls that it referred previously to allegations that non-indigenous owners were threatening the safety of indigenous peoples occupying their ancestral lands. It hopes that the Government will adopt the necessary measures to safeguard their rights, including those of ownership and possession, to the lands traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples and that it will provide information on this matter.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2003.]

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

1. The Committee notes the detailed first report supplied by the Government, including the attached documentation and statistical information provided, which arrived too late to be examined at the previous session. It notes that the information contained in the report refers to a number of commitments made by the Government in the areas covered by the Convention, largely in the form of Accords between the Government and the peoples concerned. It takes particular note of the devastation wrought upon large areas of the country, particularly those areas where indigenous and tribal peoples live. The Committee notes, however, that the report does not provide particulars on the present status of the commitments undertaken, nor does the report provide a clear picture of the application of the Convention in law or practice in a number of areas covered by the Convention.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the Convention covers those persons that are members of indigenous and tribal peoples, particularly those belonging to the Confederation of Autochthonous Peoples of Honduras (CONPAH). Please indicate whether and in what manner the Convention is applied to those indigenous and tribal peoples that are not affiliated with CONPAH, and how the self-identification criterion contained in Article 1(2) of the Convention is applied in practice. Please also supply copies of any judicial decrees or legislation relevant to the application of this Article.

3. Article 2. The Committee notes with interest the information contained in the Government's report on measures taken to implement the provisions of this Article, including the establishment of a bilateral commission composed of members of the Government and ethnic groups and the Accords of 19 April 1996 and 11 October 1996. The Accord of 19 April 1996 sets forth the Government's undertaking to carry out previous commitments it made in July 1994 and July 1995. Specific reference is made in this Accord to, among other things, work to be undertaken by the Inter-institutional Commission, composed of a number of governmental agencies. Reference is also made to a transportation project and certain programmes intended to benefit the Chorti tribes. The report does not indicate how the 1994-95 undertakings, carried forward into the Accord of 19 April 1996, have been applied. The 11 October 1996 Accord supplied by the Government also refers to a number of commitments, including a programme which was initiated on 16 October 1996 entailing the granting of land to Garifuna communities and a National Agrarian Institute (INA) programme to provide agrarian technical assistance to indigenous communities.

4. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, copies of all Accords it has entered into with or on behalf of Honduran indigenous and tribal peoples and their representative organizations since the date the Convention entered into force, and to indicate the current status of the commitments undertaken in those Accords. The Government is further requested to provide information on the status of any activities undertaken by the Government-Ethnic Groups Commission relevant to the Convention, particularly the status of the draft law implementing the Convention. Finally, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide practical examples of the manner in which the peoples concerned have participated in the development of the measures referred to in the Government's report and attached Accords.

5. The Committee notes that article 173 of the Honduran Constitution provides that "the State shall preserve and stimulate the native cultures, as well as all authentic expressions of national folklore, popular art and handicrafts". Please indicate the manner in which article 173 is implemented and enforced in practice, and provide practical examples of the application of this article.

6. With regard to Article 2(2)(c), the Government states that there are no socio-economic gaps or gaps of any other nature between the indigenous and tribal peoples of Honduras and the national citizenry. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the basis for its statements in this regard, and to state whether any studies have been done comparing the socio-economic status and/or income levels of indigenous peoples with the national average in Honduras.

7. Articles 3 and 4. The Government report states that the Accords mentioned above guarantee the improvement of education, health and the environment for indigenous and tribal peoples and guarantee their security. However, the Committee is aware of allegations that non-indigenous landowners have threatened the security of indigenous people occupying their ancestral lands. Please provide information on any special measures enacted to safeguard the persons, institutions, property, labour, cultures and environment of the peoples concerned and to indicate whether these measures have proven adequate to ensure the security of these peoples.

8. Article 6. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding its consultations with the indigenous and tribal peoples through the establishment of bipartite committees, such as the Government-Ethnic Groups Commission. Please provide additional information on the consultation activities carried out by this Commission and any other bilateral committees, as well as on the extent to which the peoples concerned have participated in the decision-making process in areas relevant to the application of the Convention.

9. Article 7. The Committee notes with interest the information supplied by the Government regarding the Accords it has signed with the peoples concerned, undertaking to grant lands and provide agricultural technical assistance, construct and improve housing, clean up the environment, improve existing systems of health and education, and strengthen the security of the indigenous communities. Please provide particulars of measures taken for the development of the regions in question, indicating the status of their implementation following Hurricane Mitch, as well as the manner in which the participation of the peoples concerned in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of these measures is ensured. The Government is further requested to provide information on whether and what environmental impact studies have been done prior to carrying out land or forestry development projects affecting lands used or inhabited by indigenous and tribal peoples, and on any specific measures taken to protect and preserve the environment of these lands.

10. Articles 8 to 10. The Committee notes the Government's statement that it respects the rights of the peoples concerned and that its national legislation does not conflict with their customs. Please supply copies of any provisions that address the application of indigenous customs or customary laws as well as any information on the manner in which account is taken of these customs or customary laws in applying national laws and regulations.

11. Article 12. In its report, the Government states that the law and the public police force protect all citizens from violation of their rights, including the indigenous and tribal peoples. The Committee notes that there is a Public Prosecutor's Office for Ethnic Groups and a Public Defender's Office that provides pro bono legal services for those that cannot pay for their defence. The Government's report states that the peoples concerned may initiate whatever legal proceedings they deem appropriate and that they will be provided with the necessary interpreters, but that almost all of these peoples speak Spanish. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the activities of the Public Prosecutor's and Public Defender's Offices with regard to the representation of individuals or organizations that are members of indigenous or tribal peoples.

12. The Committee notes that the Office has received communications alleging certain violations of the human rights of indigenous and tribal peoples in Honduras. The communications received include a 15 July 1997 letter from CONPAH, forwarded by the Office to the Honduran Minister of Labour by letter dated 20 August 1997, to which no reply was received. In view of the grave nature of the human rights violations alleged, the Committee asks the Government to supply information regarding any specific measures it has taken to guarantee the security of the peoples concerned.

13. Articles 13 and 14. In view of the Government's explanations of the principal types of landholding, the Committee asks the Government to provide additional information in its next report explaining the manner in which title to land is actually held by the indigenous and tribal peoples. The Committee also notes the commitments made by the Government to grant title to certain indigenous peoples to lands traditionally occupied by them, including the Garifuna, and Chorti tribes. The Committee requests the Government to provide full information on the status of the land grants it undertook to complete under its Accords with the indigenous peoples.

14. Article 15. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any specific measures taken or contemplated to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples to their natural resources, indicating the application of section 15 of the Agrarian Reform Law to this subject, if any, and any substantive measures taken to implement article 346 of the Honduran Constitution. The Committee further requests information on the participation of the peoples concerned in the use, management and conservation of these natural resources, including the use of indigenous techniques in environmental conservation strategies, and copies of any environmental studies conducted on the areas occupied by the indigenous peoples.

15. The Government's report states that the exploitation of forests belonging to the indigenous communities is carried out by means of a usufruct granted to the Honduran Forestry Development Corporation (COHDEFOR). Please indicate whether the indigenous peoples participated in the process leading to the conveyance of the usufruct and the specific uses and activities encompassed in the usufruct. Please also supply practical examples of any consultations that may have been carried out with indigenous communities when the Government has decided to exploit natural resources pertaining to indigenous lands, as well as information regarding the participation of the peoples concerned in the benefits of exploration or exploitation of such natural resources and any compensation provided for damages sustained as a result of those activities.

16. Article 16. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply copies of any specific legal provisions prohibiting the removal of the peoples concerned from the lands they occupy without their consent and indicate the procedures established, if any, to permit participation of these peoples in any decision involving their removal from their ancestral lands. The Committee notes the Government's statement that when indigenous peoples occupying land have been removed, they have been compensated. Please provide additional information, including copies of relevant legislation, regarding the manner in which compensation is determined, as well as examples of any instances where compensation has been paid for taking of indigenous lands.

17. Articles 17 and 18. The Committee requests information on any measures taken or contemplated to prevent the incursion into indigenous lands by non-indigenous persons, as well as to guarantee the security of the indigenous peoples occupying those lands. Please also indicate the specific civil and criminal provisions applied and provide examples of penalties imposed in the event of unauthorized intrusions upon, or use of indigenous lands.

18. Article 19. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information in its next report explaining the three sectors referred to in its report under this Article and providing additional information regarding the pending production project described, including where the project is or will be located, the persons or entities responsible for carrying out the project, the nature of the activities envisaged, and the manner in which the project complies with the Convention.

19. Article 20. The Committee requests the Government to provide information regarding any measures it has taken or contemplates taking to prevent discrimination against the peoples concerned within the meaning of Article 20(2) and (3). Please also provide information on the establishment of adequate labour inspection facilities and procedures in the areas concerned as well as on the activities of the labour inspectorate in this regard.

20. Articles 21 to 23. The Committee notes with interest the Government's statements that, on 19 April 1996, it entered into an agreement with the indigenous peoples pursuant to which the National Vocational Training Institute (INFOP) undertook to implement vocational training programmes in specific areas, taking into account the present circumstances of those peoples. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would attach a copy of this agreement with its next report and provide additional information regarding any training given during the reporting period, specifying the areas in which training was provided and the manner in which the needs of the peoples concerned were ascertained in order to determine the type of training offered. Further, in view of the proposed amendments to article 107 of the Honduran Constitution (if it were to be approved), the Committee asks the Government to indicate whether it has taken or contemplates taking steps to provide training to the Garifuna, Misquito and other peoples inhabiting the coastal and island areas to prepare them to work in the tourism-related enterprises, in light of the possible tourist development of lands traditionally occupied by them.

21. Articles 24 and 25. The Committee notes the Government's statements that there is a health project for indigenous and tribal peoples. The Government's report also refers to proposals for the establishment of indigenous community health centres, 22 of which already exist, some located in the tribal territories. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information regarding these indigenous health projects. It also requests further information on the indigenous health centre programme, including locations and the types of services provided, in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch.

22. Articles 26 to 30. The Committee notes with interest the Government's statements regarding measures taken to implement these Articles of the Convention, particularly Decree No. 93-97, which establishes the legal basis for a system of bilingual intercultural education as a means to "preserve and stimulate the native culture of Honduras". The Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information regarding the application in practice of the programme of bilingual and bicultural education, including information on the content of the programme, the manner in which it has been developed and what steps have been taken to train members of the peoples concerned as well as to promote and ensure their participation in the formulation and implementation of this programme. Please indicate what steps have been taken to ensure that the teachers in the bilingual programme are able to speak the language of the indigenous community to which they are assigned, as well as information regarding further developments in regard to the preparation and implementation of the new curriculum, including the training of teachers, the number of teachers that are members of the peoples concerned, the condition of the school infrastructure and the extent of the funds allocated to rebuild educational facilities destroyed by Hurricane Mitch. In addition, please state what measures have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that the peoples concerned have the opportunity to attain fluency in Spanish as well as to preserve the practice of their indigenous languages. Finally, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply a copy of Decree No. 93-97 as well as continuing to supply information regarding the nature and scope of the draft projects proposed to implement Article 30, indicating when any of these projects are approved and implemented.

23. Article 31. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any educational measures adopted or envisaged to eliminate prejudices that may be harboured in respect of the peoples concerned.

24. Article 33. The Committee notes that the governmental agencies responsible for administering programmes affecting Honduran indigenous and tribal peoples include the National Agrarian Institute (INA), the Honduran Social Investment Fund (FHIS), the National Autonomous University of Honduras (UNAH), which recently carried out an educational programme for the Tawakha people, the National Pedagogical University (UPN) and the Department of Health and Education. The Government indicates that these agencies have established technical teams comprised of representatives of the Government and of indigenous and tribal peoples. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information regarding the activities of these agencies and their technical teams, indicating what measures have been taken to ensure that they have the means necessary to adequately fulfil their functions.

25. Part IV of the report form. According to the report, no courts of law or other tribunals have issued any decisions relevant to the application of the Convention. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide copies of any such decisions that may be rendered in the future.

26. Part VII of the report form. The report indicates that it is a first draft but that, once it is published, the Government will provide copies to the appropriate organizations, including CTH, CONPAH and the Public Prosecutor's Office for Ethnic Groups. The Committee requests the Government to confirm that copies of the report have been communicated to the organizations referred to in its report under this point of the report form.

27. Part VIII of the report form. The report states that the Government has not consulted organizations of indigenous or tribal peoples in the country with regard to measures taken to give effect to the Convention, or with regard to preparing reports on its application. The Committee recalls that the report form under this Convention 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. Please indicate in future reports whether such consultations have been carried out, and what the results have been.

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

The Committee has examined the Government's first report, which arrived too late to be considered at its previous session. It notes in particular that the first report indicated a number of ways in which plans were being made for the Convention's implementation, but that most of these plans remained to be implemented. This was made far more difficult by the devastation wrought upon the country - particularly in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples - by Hurricane Mitch in 1998. The Committee is therefore addressing a request directly to the Government asking for more detailed and up-to-date information on the progress made on the implementation of the Convention, with particular emphasis on the involvement of the indigenous peoples of the country in decisions affecting them, as required by Article 6 of the Convention.

In this connection, the Committee notes that the Government proposed to amend article 107 of the Constitution, in a way which would have permitted the acquisition of lands along the coastline by private individuals. Indigenous groups in the country are reported to have felt that this would damage their rights to the lands which they traditionally occupy. The Committee understands that the proposal to enact this amendment has now been suspended, but it would be grateful if the Government would provide information in its next report on the current situation.