Experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Commend Honduras on Work to Combat Hate Speech, Raise Questions on Reports of State-Sanctioned Displacement of Indigenous Peoples and Bilingual Education
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today concluded its consideration of the combined ninth to eleventh periodic reports of Honduras on its implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Committee Experts commended the State on work undertaken to combat hate speech, while raising questions on reports on the State-sanctioned displacement of indigenous peoples and the State’s bilingual education opportunities.
Guan Jian, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said he greatly appreciated the work of the State party to combat hate speech, particularly regarding the training of media professionals.
Chrispine Gwalawala Sibande, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said there were reports of State-sanctioned displacement of indigenous peoples and people of African descent, and of activities of armed groups leading to internal displacement. Local police reportedly often failed to investigate threats to these groups. Currently, around 423,000 people were internally displaced - 4.5 per cent of the population. What measures were in place to address forced internal displacement and provide support to affected indigenous and Afro-descendant persons?
Mr. Jian asked what progress had been made in the level of literacy and access to primary, secondary and university education in indigenous communities, as well as a reduction in school dropouts? What had been the impact of measures taken to guarantee the right to bilingual intercultural education and on the effective participation of indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples in the design and evaluation of such measures?
Introducing the report, Leda Lizethe García Pagan, Secretary of State in the Office of Human Rights of Honduras and head of the delegation, said Honduras was a multi-ethnic and multicultural State where various indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples lived together. Their histories, languages, traditions, ancestral knowledge and cultural expressions constituted an essential part of the national identity and cultural heritage. The cultural and ethnic diversity of Honduras constituted a wealth that needed to be protected, promoted and respected.
Responding to questions, the delegation said between 2024 and 2026, the Department of Human Rights dealt with 374 cases of internal displacement involving around 1,200 persons, including 88 indigenous persons and persons of African descent. The main causes behind this displacement were threats, murder, violence, extortion, sexual and gender-based violence and dispossession of land. In 2024, five consultation sessions on preventing displacement were held with 170 persons, including representatives of indigenous peoples. A dedicated commission had been set up to develop a national regulation on the prevention of internal forced displacement.
The delegation said the school meal programme had also been strengthened, benefitting more than 100,000 indigenous or Afro-Honduran people and subsequently helping to combat the levels of school dropout. Honduras had 1,213 bilingual cultural education centres, with tens of thousands of children participating each year. The multicultural curriculum reflected respect for indigenous peoples, discussing colonialism and the struggles of racism in today’s reality. The literacy “Yes I can” initiative included a bilingual educational component.
In concluding remarks, Saúl Vicente Vázquez, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, thanked Honduras for its active participation in the dialogue, as well as all those who had made the dialogue possible. The delegation’s in-depth responses were appreciated, which had enabled the Committee to address serious issues relating to indigenous groups in Honduras.
Ms. García Pagan, in her concluding remarks thanked the Committee for the opportunity to pursue the dialogue, which was an opportunity for accountability. Forging a society free of all forms of discrimination was an ongoing task; there needed to be tangible policies and actions to overcome the divides which had historically affected indigenous peoples and Afro-Hondurans.
The delegation of Honduras consisted of representatives of the Secretariat of State for Human Rights; Secretary of State in the Office of Social Development; National Congress; Judicial Branch; Public Prosecutor's Office; Office of the Attorney General of the Republic; National Agrarian Institute; National Institute of Statistics; Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock; Secretariat of Security; Secretariat for Women's Affairs; and the Permanent Mission of Honduras to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Honduras after the conclusion of its one hundred and eighteenth session on 25 August. The programme of work and other documents related to the session can be found here. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Monday, 17 August at 3 p.m. to consider the combined twenty-fourth to twenty-sixth periodic reports of Finland (CERD/C/FIN/24-26).
Report
The Committee has before it the ninth to eleventh periodic reports of Honduras (CERD/C/HND/9-11).
Presentation of Report
KARLA CUEVA, Permanent Representative of Honduras to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said Honduras placed high importance on the dialogue, which was an opportunity to demonstrate the State’s progress in implementing the Convention and also to recognise the challenges faced regarding its full implementation. Honduras believed that the treaty bodies contributed to the strengthening of institutions and the framework of public policies, as the protection of human rights was the key to moving towards a more just, sustainable and inclusive society.
LEDA LIZETHE GARCÍA PAGAN, Secretary of State in the Office of Human Rights of Honduras and head of the delegation, said the President of Honduras reaffirmed his commitment to the international obligations arising from the Convention. Honduras came before the Committee with full readiness for dialogue, with objectivity, transparency and a constructive spirit.
Honduras was a multi-ethnic and multicultural State where various indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples lived together. Their histories, languages, traditions, ancestral knowledge and cultural expressions constituted an essential part of the national identity and cultural heritage. The cultural and ethnic diversity of Honduras constituted a wealth that needed to be protected, promoted and respected.
The Constitution of Honduras recognised the duty of the State to protect the rights of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples. In compliance with this mandate, Honduras had promoted actions aimed at strengthening institutional capacities and public policies. After three years of delay, the State had launched the most recent census, which would strengthen the availability of updated and disaggregated data on the living conditions of the population. This would guide public policies aimed at guaranteeing equality and non-discrimination.
The State was updating the national plan of action on human rights, a strategic tool to guide the State towards preventive, comprehensive and people-centred action with a human rights-based approach. This update aimed to strengthen actions guaranteeing the rights of populations in vulnerable situations, reducing historical inequalities and promoting conditions that favoured their sustainable development.
Honduras had begun to formulate a new comprehensive policy for indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, including the participation of the peoples themselves as well as the various sectors involved in this area. The process of updating the comprehensive policy for women 2026-2036 had begun, incorporating a differentiated approach that recognised the needs of women and girls belonging to the indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples of Honduras. Honduras recently approved the inclusive employment law, which promoted decent work for indigenous peoples and Afro-Honduran peoples without discrimination.
The Honduran International Recommendations Monitoring System “SIMOREH” had been reactivated to strengthen follow-up, institutional coordination and compliance with the recommendations made by international human rights protection mechanisms.
The State recognised that important challenges remained. The reduction of poverty and inequalities, as well as the effective guarantee of access to health, education and decent work, continued to be priorities that required sustained efforts and coordinated institutional action. There was also a gap between the legal recognition of certain rights and their effective exercise by all individuals and communities. Closing this gap was one of the main challenges of the State.
In the dialogue, Honduras sought to demonstrate its progress in human rights through facts, concrete results and real transformations in peoples' lives. It reaffirmed its commitment to equality and non-discrimination, effective protection of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, and strengthening of public policies based on human rights, with the increased participation of communities in the decisions that affected their present and their future. The State would receive the Committee’s recommendations in a constructive spirit.
Questions by Committee Experts
GÜN KUT, Committee Chair, speaking on behalf of FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Follow-Up Rapporteur, said that previous concluding observations on Honduras were adopted in 2018, and the State party had duly submitted its follow-up report on the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee found the State party’s responses to all be partially satisfactory, explaining its reasons in a letter to the State party.
SAÚL VICENTE VÁZQUEZ, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the dialogue was the State party's first review since 2018, and came at a time of institutional transition. It was an opportunity to discuss the progress made and identify obstacles that persisted in the effective enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the Convention by indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and of women and girls belonging to these communities.
The Committee noted the State party’s efforts to incorporate an ethnic-racial variable and a self-identification criterion in the last census, but this was conducted 13 years ago and there were no disaggregated socio-economic indicators to measure the effective enjoyment of the rights of indigenous and Afro-descendant persons. What was the timetable for the current census? How would the State address the lack of data on English-speaking Afro-descendant communities in the Bay Islands? Could the State provide disaggregated data on indigenous and Afro-descendant persons? There were cases in which indigenous peoples had been denied the right to a hearing in court because they were not registered. How was the State party addressing this issue? What measures were in place regarding the recognition of the Nahua people?
Could the delegation give some examples of court cases that had referenced the Convention? How many members of the judiciary had received training on the Convention, including training that addressed racial discrimination against non-citizens? How was the State party sensitising the population on the Convention and judicial remedies for racial discrimination? Was it measuring the impact of these activities?
The State party had yet to adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation that provided a clear definition of racial discrimination in line with the Convention and covered all areas of law and public life. What measures were in place to adopt such legislation? What measures were in place to eliminate racial discrimination against indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples? Was the State creating civil and administrative remedies for racial discrimination?
The Committee noted the establishment in 2022 of the National Coordination Office of Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples and the Secretariat of State in the Offices of Culture, Arts and Heritage of the Peoples of Honduras. Why had the Directorate of Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples not been restored to ministerial level? What financial resources were available for these bodies, and for the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Protection of Ethnic Groups and Cultural Heritage? How ethnically diverse were their personnel and did they have a presence in remote areas? Did the State envision reactivating the National Commission against Racial Discrimination, Racism and Xenophobia? What was the mandate of the Office of the Special Prosecutor? What mechanisms guaranteed the effective participation of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples in developing and assessing policies that affected them?
What progress had been made in implementing the public policy against racism and racial discrimination 2016-2026? Would the State party develop a national action plan to combat racial discrimination, and would the plan cover migrants, asylum seekers and refugees? What measures and activities had been planned in the framework of the Second International Decade for People of African Descent?
More than 97 per cent of crimes against human rights defenders reportedly went unpunished. Could the State party provide data on the complaints received, the investigations opened, and the sentences obtained by the Special Prosecutor's Office for the Protection of Ethnic Groups and Cultural Heritage during the reporting period? How many interpreters and public defenders were available, and what steps had been taken to recognise indigenous peoples' own justice systems? What concrete measures had been taken to remove obstacles to access to justice for migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and to reverse the burden of proof in favour of victims? What were the consequences when local authorities did not comply with judgements in favour of indigenous and Afro-Honduran communities?
More than 10 years after the judgments handed down by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concerning Garifuna communities, land delimitation and titling had not yet been implemented. What measures were in place to comply with these judgements? What progress had been made in reforming the commission responsible for the implementation of international judgments and allowing the participation of beneficiary communities?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that in 2013, 717,000 persons belonging to indigenous and Afro-descendant communities were recorded in the census. The State launched a new census on 10 August 2026, which would allow for the collection of up-to-date information on the demographic and socio-economic makeup of the State. Members of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities were involved in designing the questions and methodology of the census, which incorporated self-identification. Self-identification was also incorporated in national identity documents.
The judiciary had developed case law and at least 16 constitutional rulings on the protection of indigenous peoples and access to justice. Judges needed to assess self-perception of cultural identity. Concerned communities developed criteria for the identification of members of their community. The State had a national register of interpreters and translators; currently more than 200 “justice helpers”, 17 translators and two official interpreters worked for the State. The assignment of interpreters was managed digitally. The judicial facilitator service helped bring justice closer to remote communities.
The Criminal Code included aggravating circumstances when offences were committed on racist grounds or based on the victim’s religion, language, race, sex or other characteristics. State institutions needed to ensure that at least five per cent of their staff belonged to indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples. The electoral law protected voters from discrimination based on race, colour or other characteristics. The State party was currently working toward developing a comprehensive anti-discrimination law.
In 2026, the State reorganised the Ministry of Social Development and set up the General Office for Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples, which was responsible for promoting the development of these peoples. The budget of the Office for the Protection of Ethnicities had been increased by 500 per cent in recent years.
The public policy against racism and racial discrimination 2016-2026 ended this year and would be replaced by the comprehensive policy for indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples 2027-2032, which would be developed through consultations with these peoples. The Office of Human Rights was currently updating its national action plan for human rights 2027-2032, which would contain 37 specific actions for indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples. The State was also in the process of devising policies for commemorating the Second International Decade for People of African Descent.
In 2026, a special protocol had been developed for investigating violence against indigenous and Afro-descendant women, and special legal bodies for trying cases of femicide and violence against women had been set up.
Regarding the ruling related to the Garifuna people, the State party had adopted an action plan and published a resolution on the registration of Garifuna territories. It was carrying out verification activities to assess ancestral land claims in the community.
Follow-Up Questions by Committee Experts
SAÚL VICENTE VÁZQUEZ, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, expressed hope that the upcoming census would allow for the collection of a full set of socio-economic indicators. The Committee would be happy to provide technical support in the development of legislation on anti-discrimination.
GUAN JIAN, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked which domestic authority served as the highest coordinating body for the execution of the judgements of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. How was implementation evaluated and what measures were in place to demand remedies and better implementation of the judgements?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that the State party provided specialised training between 2024 and 2026 on the rights of indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, bringing together 170 members of the judiciary. Training on non-discriminatory conduct, territorial rights and the rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had also been held for judicial staff.
A 2026 decree increased the penalties for femicide if the victim was a member of an indigenous or Afro-descendant community. There were 32 cases of femicide in which a woman from these groups was the victim. A protocol had been developed on the investigation of violence against indigenous and Afro-descendant women.
The National Migration Institute had updated statistical data on migrants and refugees disaggregated based on sex, age and nationality. In future, it would work to identify migrants belonging to indigenous groups based on self-identification, which would allow for more targeted support.
Questions by Committee Experts
CHRISPINE GWALAWALA SIBANDE, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked for data on judgements related to cases of hate crimes and hate speech against indigenous and Afro-descendant groups and remedies provided to victims. What challenges did the State party face in preventing and legislating against such crimes? State legislation did not specifically prohibit the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority. What plans were in place to address this? What measures were in place to address issues of hate speech, hate crimes and incitement to racial hatred? How many cases of hate speech and hate crimes committed online or through the media had the State recorded, including cases committed by public officials? How did the State ensure that cases of hate speech and hate crimes were assessed by courts expeditiously?
The National Human Rights Institute oversaw the implementation of the Convention, but it reportedly lacked resources and struggled to address structural impunity in Honduras. There were concerns regarding the role of the National Congress in appointing members of the Institute. Did the appointment process reflect principles of independence? What measures were being considered to strengthen the financial autonomy and capacity of the staff of the institution, and ensure that the cases it referred to the Government were properly investigated?
Deported Hondurans from third countries, particularly people of African descent and indigenous peoples, faced structural discrimination upon their return. What measures supported their reintegration and addressed the challenges that they faced?
There were reports of State-sanctioned displacement of indigenous peoples and people of African descent, and of activities of armed groups leading to internal displacement. Local police reportedly often failed to investigate threats to these groups. Currently, around 423,000 people were internally displaced - 4.5 per cent of the population. What measures were in place to address forced internal displacement and provide support to affected indigenous and Afro-descendant persons? What steps had been taken to protect migrants, asylum seekers and refugees from trafficking in persons, exploitation and other human rights violations?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Honduras had bolstered prevention mechanisms for hate speech and racial discrimination. A dedicated prosecutor’s office was investigating 31 complaints of discrimination and incitement to hatred involving indigenous persons that were submitted between 2024 and 2026. Training was provided to public prosecutors to investigate such cases. The State trained journalists on communicating without stigma to prevent hate speech before it occurred.
Honduras deeply valued the work of its national human rights institution and respected its independence. The budget for the institution increased by 30 per cent in 2026, which allowed for salary increases and capacity building for staff. The selection process for members of the institution followed legal obligations and was conducted transparently and objectively in accordance with the Paris Principles.
Between 2024 and 2026, the Department of Human Rights dealt with 374 cases of internal displacement involving around 1,200 people, including 88 indigenous people and people of African descent. The main causes behind this displacement were threats, murder, violence, extortion, sexual and gender-based violence and dispossession of land. In 2024, five consultation sessions on preventing displacement were held with 170 persons, including representatives of indigenous peoples. A dedicated commission had been set up to develop a national regulation on the prevention of internal forced displacement. The State expected to submit the approved regulation to the President in September 2026. This regulation would enable the operation of a fund for the assistance of internally displaced persons and the establishment of units for displaced persons in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples. It would also coordinate support measures related to health, education, employment and housing.
Between 2019 and 2026, the National Migration Institute recorded the entry and departure of 18.2 million people in Honduras, including 10 million foreigners and 1.2 million individuals in irregular migration. The main nationalities of irregular migrants were Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Ecuadorian. The Institute took a human rights-based approach to migration and operated four assistance centres for irregular migrants, which provided temporary care and basic services. The Institute had received 1,600 applications for asylum from people of various nationalities and issued 108 favourable decisions.
Follow-Up Questions by Committee Experts
GUAN JIAN, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said he greatly appreciated the work of the State party to combat hate speech, particularly regarding the training of media professionals. How effectively was the media preventing hate speech?
CHRISPINE GWALAWALA SIBANDE, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked how the State party was addressing hate crimes linked to the private sector and strengthening the education curriculum and training programmes on preventing racial discrimination for public officials. How were indigenous peoples and people of African descent involved in the development of the curriculum and textbooks? How did the curriculum address legacies of slavery and colonialism?
SAÚL VICENTE VÁZQUEZ, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, welcomed the work of the national human rights institution and the increase in its budget. He called for the reform of legislation on how the institution appointed its members to ensure an independent process.
Other Committee Experts asked for more information on the hate speech cases presented by the delegation; and whether the State party could provide more information on investigations into disappearances, murders and intimidation of indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said that from 2024 to 2026, 28,000 people were trained in human rights, including civil servants, people in law enforcement and members of civil society. Training sought to cover obligations under the Convention, addressing the prevention of human rights violations and the promotion of peace.
A new bilingual educational model had been included in the State curriculum that addressed the historic effects of slavery and colonialism and the worldviews of indigenous peoples and people of African descent. The State was collecting data on the participation of these groups in education and translating the Convention and the observations of the Committee into these groups’ languages.
The Special Prosecutor’s Office of Ethnicities and Cultural Heritage had a budget of 17 million lempiras to address cases of discrimination. The dedicated prosecutor’s office had registered 84 complaints from indigenous and Afro-descendant people from 2024 to 2026, 49 of which were under investigation and 16 of which had been prosecuted. The Office of the Special Prosecutor had conducted training for members of the judiciary on upholding the rights of indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples and had also developed a handbook on this topic.
Over the last three years, the State had developed linguistic rehabilitation programmes and a national plan to safeguard indigenous languages, and set up several cultural houses showcasing indigenous and Afro-descendant cultures.
The Supreme Court of Justice had referenced the Convention in its ruling on a 2019 case involving the Garifuna people and applied article one of the Convention directly in a 2025 ruling in a case of discrimination in the media targeting the Lenca people. Inter-institutional work was underway to formally recognise the rights of indigenous peoples in cases involving cultural insensitivity.
Regarding cases involving violations of the rights of indigenous peoples by private actors, the prosecutor’s office was currently investigating six cases involving Western mining companies, targeting concerns about potential illegal exploitation of natural resources and environmental pollution.
Questions by Committee Experts
SAÚL VICENTE VÁZQUEZ, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked if the State party could provide statistical disaggregated data on the representation of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples in political life and decision-making positions? What was the status of the bill aimed at establishing political participation quotas for indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, and the anticipated timeline for its adoption? What measures had been taken to ensure the participation of indigenous and Afro-Honduran women in both national political life and in the representative institutions of their own peoples, and what results had been achieved? Had the ethnic backgrounds of victims of political violence during the 2025 electoral period been recorded?
The Committee had received information alleging the use of lethal force by the Armed Forces against the Miskito population in the department of Gracias a Dios on 16 September 2021, during counter-narcotics operations, without any convictions resulting from these events. Could the State party provide information on the investigations conducted, the sanctions imposed on those responsible, and the reparations granted to victims, their families and affected communities? What legislative measures had been adopted to explicitly prohibit racial profiling by law enforcement officers, and what disciplinary and criminal measures had been applied in practice?
Could the State party report on the status of the investigation into the attack by Armed Forces personnel on the Miskito community of Ibans and on the outcome of the investigations regarding the operations in Ahuás (2012) and Warunta (2018)? What protocols governed the use of aerial assets and lethal force in counter-narcotics operations carried out in indigenous territories?
What measures had the State party adopted to protect community radio stations against acts of violence? What concrete measures had been adopted to prevent the misuse of criminal law against members of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples exercising their right to peaceful assembly? Could data be provided on criminal proceedings? Could the State party provide data on criminal proceedings for forced displacement initiated against members of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples during the reporting period and report specifically on the situation of the five members of the Garifuna community of San Juan? Could information be provided on trials of encroachment on indigenous lands?
Could the State party provide up-to-date information on the investigations conducted, sanctions imposed and reparations granted for the 17 documented deaths of human rights defenders in 2025, particularly regarding the identification of the mastermind behind the murder of defender Juan Antonio López and the implementation of the recommendations made by the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts in the Berta Cáceres case?
The Committee had received information alleging the use of sexual violence against indigenous women and girls as a reprisal for defending their territory and as a method of dispossession; did the State party collect data on these incidents and what investigations and reparations had taken place?
The Committee has received reports alleging the continued use of criminalisation as a deterrent against the Lenca Indigenous Councils of Potrerillos, Cacao and Nueva Esperanza, and against the Garifuna community of Crawfish Rock. Could the State party provide information regarding these allegations? Could information be provided on the status of proceedings concerning the 2019 murders of three Tolupán human rights defenders?
The Committee noted the adoption in June 2026 of legislative decree 107-2026 concerning the agro-industrial, energy, tourism and livestock sectors; it had been alleged that this decree was drafted without the participation or consent of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples and without alignment with their collective rights. What was the projected timeline for submitting the specific legislation to the National Congress, and to what extent did its content align with international instruments? What investigations, sanctions and reparations had been provided to indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples affected by the implementation of projects carried out without prior consultation?
The Committee noted the establishment in 2023 of the Commission on Agrarian Security and Access to Land, as well as the reported granting of definitive land titles for over 9,000 hectares to Miskito and Garifuna communities. However, it was regretful that according to United Nations reports, nine forced evictions were carried out in 2025 against peasant communities and indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples. Could information be provided regarding the hectares for which titles were granted and the land regularisation and restitution processes effectively concluded? How did the State party reconcile the actions of the Zero Deforestation Commission with the collective territorial rights of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples?
The Committee had received information regarding 221 complaints of forced displacement filed between 2016 and May 2025 by members of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples identifying members of State security forces among the alleged perpetrators; could more information be provided on this? Could information be provided on pending land titling or regularisation claims from other Garifuna communities?
Could the State party specify the legal background, scope, exceptions and effective enforcement mechanism of the mining moratorium announced in 2022, and provide a list of concessions, licenses and permits currently in effect within indigenous lands? What independent environmental, social and cultural impact studies had been conducted with the participation of the affected peoples, and who funded and validated them? What was the status of the Agua Zarca hydroelectric project and the concessions in the Tocoa area? What was the status of the preliminary bill on the simplification of environmental licensing submitted to the National Congress in May 2025?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the general elections of November 2025 saw the Honduran people choosing between 11 persons belonging to indigenous communities representing eight per cent of the National Congress. This was not just symbolic; within the Congress there were two Vice Presidents who had been elected by Miskito and Garifuna peoples and other representatives from indigenous communities who took on important roles within the various committees. Challenges remained in the election process, ensuring that there was diverse representation. A method was being discussed which would ensure equal representation of the nine indigenous communities.
The acts of the national police were governed by a framework which included respect for human rights and regulated the use of force to being proportionate and only used when strictly necessary. Lethal force was reserved as a last resort. More than 7,000 police officers had been trained on use of force in 2025. There were mechanisms for oversight and accountability, with more than 500 complaints received between 2024 and 2026 on excessive use of force, the majority relating to land evictions; 18 of these cases were referred to the Public Prosecutor’s service. Honduras aimed to not only prevent excessive use of force but to investigate any allegations of abuse and strengthen their police action.
As of February 2023, Honduras carried out work in the San Juan municipality, with multiple stakeholders with a view to identifying alternative lands to be granted to the communities. The official summary of the judgement was made available in Spanish and the Garifuna language.
The State attached high priority to the protection of human rights defenders. The National Protection Council had been reactivated and met seven times already in 2026, strengthening participation by civil society organizations. A 2025 decree specifically included human rights defenders within the protection centre.
Regarding the case of Juan Antonio López, charges were filed against the presumed masterminds in 2026. Sentences had also been handed down in symbolic cases such as in the Berta Cáceres case. Honduras acknowledged that challenges remained and was working to overcome these challenges and ensure that human rights defenders could carry out their work freely and safely.
Between 2024 and 2026, eight community titles were issued for more than 1,300 hectares for communities from the Chorti and Nahau peoples. Compensation had been provided in 129 cases for appropriation of land. Monitoring carried out by the Ministry of Human Rights recorded all incidents regarding peoples’ land and these details would be sent to the Committee.
Regarding the Agua Zarca project, a declaration rendered resolutions null and void, meaning environmental licenses were left without any value. In the case of the Gualcarque River, these acts were condemned, and 32 junctions had been filed for illegal exploitation of resources over the last three years.
Follow-up Questions by Committee Experts
Committee Experts asked follow-up questions about the issuing of land titles; the murder of environmental defender Juan Antonio López; the low level of convictions of attacks against Garifuna; appeal options for the denial of land titles; and requested comments on decree 107-2026 enshrining eviction orders.
An Expert commended the measures adopted by the State to protect the Garifuna community.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said environmental defender Juan Antonio López was murdered in 2024, and an investigation was launched through the Special Prosecutor’s Office. The perpetrators were brought before the court in October 2024, with a hearing taking place in 2026 for evidence to be submitted. In 2026, the presumed masterminds behind the killing were detained. The defence of the accused had requested the revision of the sentences and a decision in this regard was still pending.
International Labour Convention 169 had been integrated into the domestic legislation of Honduras and into the State’s mining, forestry and fishing legislation. As of July 2026, the National Congress lacked a specific consultation mechanism on free, prior and informed consent, but this did not mean these rights were not protected. The State was working on a law to plug these gaps aiming to have a solid piece of legislation drafted in consultation with indigenous peoples.
An oversight mechanism was in place to ensure certain lands could not be sold or broken up. Instructions had been issued to protect community land and property. Land titles were usually denied by the Agrarian Institute when the lands being requested were private titles, which had been distributed under the Spanish crown. In these cases, financial compensation and other avenues were being explored.
Private security companies were regulated by a law and were prohibited from engaging in activities outside the law. The use or carrying of weapons was strictly regulated. Training was being provided to judicial staff to enable them to explain to people what to do if they objected to a proposed land use, to ensure they understood their rights.
Questions by Committee Experts
GUAN JIAN, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked for information on guaranteeing the effective enjoyment of the rights of indigenous communities and Afro-Hondurans throughout the State party? What was the impact of such measures and the participation of these populations in their design, implementation and evaluation? What measures were being taken to ensure universal birth registration and effective access to identity documents for indigenous and Afro-descendant persons?
Information received by the Committee showed that poverty and extreme poverty rates of indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples were higher compared to other ethnic groups, with an estimated 80 per cent of indigenous peoples living below the national poverty line. According to data, in the region of Gracias a Dios, where the Miskito, Tawahka, Pech and Garifuna peoples lived, 78.1 per cent of households were in a state of poverty or extreme poverty.
The Committee was informed that the State party had taken many measures to eliminate poverty, including the development of many plans. Could the delegation provide further information on the measures adopted to reduce the levels of poverty and extreme poverty affecting indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants, including the “Our Roots Programme”? What recent actions had been taken to guarantee effective access to basic services? What had been the impact of such measures and actions, based on the evolution of the socioeconomic situation of these populations in recent years?
Honduras was a country which frequently suffered from natural disasters, exacerbated by climate change, rising sea levels and extreme weather phenomena. Natural and environmental disasters aggravated poverty and triggered the shortage of food and safe drinking water; this forced displacement, particularly in the indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples gathering areas. Could the delegation provide information on measures taken to address food insecurity and difficulties in accessing water and sanitation that mainly affected indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants? What measures had been taken to address the disproportionate impact of the effects of climate change, natural disasters and environmental degradation on these groups? What measures had been taken by the State party to address acute and chronic child malnutrition that particularly affected indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants? What had been the results of these measures?
Mr. Jian said he highly appreciated the efforts taken by the State party to reduce child dropout rates and eliminate illiteracy, develop bilingual intercultural education, invest in improving educational conditions, and build additional schools. However, statistical data showed that the dropout rate of indigenous children was higher than the national average of 21 per cent, while many schools in indigenous areas lacked adequate funding, trained teachers and culturally appropriate curricula. What measures had been taken to ensure the availability, accessibility and quality of education for children belonging to indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples? What progress had been made in the level of literacy and access to primary, secondary and university education in these communities, as well as a reduction in school dropouts? What had been the impact of measures taken to guarantee the right to bilingual intercultural education and on the effective participation of indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples in the design and evaluation of such measures?
What measures had been adopted to ensure equal access to quality and culturally appropriate health services for indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants? What was the State doing to reduce maternal and infant mortality in indigenous and Afro-descendant communities and what had been the impact of these measures?
Information showed that the Miskito divers faced occupational disease risk, lacked vocational training to prevent decompression sickness, and could not receive good treatment after getting sick, with their families not receiving appropriate compensation? Could additional information be provided on the implementation of the 2021 Inter-American Court of Human Rights judgment, as well as all other measures taken by the State party to prevent, investigate and punish such kind of cases to eradicate the conditions of exploitation in diving fishing?
What measures had been taken to combat multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination faced by indigenous and Afro-descendant women and girls, particularly regarding their access to education and health services? Data showed that Honduras had one of the most restrictive legal frameworks in the world regarding women’s sexual and reproductive rights and was one of six countries in Latin America that still criminalised abortion under all circumstances.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said timely registration of birth ensured equal access to public services. Coordination was undertaken with the national registry to ensure universal birth registration, particularly for those in rural and hard to reach areas. Technical support was provided to the National Registry to strengthen the national ecosystem for birth registration. A workshop had been held with indigenous communities to present the new system for civil registration, helping to identify barriers to registration and steps to overcome them. Mobile registration centres tailored to indigenous communities in hard-to-reach border areas had been deployed, allowing these communities to exercise their right to identity and ensuring equal access to public services.
Honduras had significantly reduced food insecurity, from 31 per cent of the population in 2021 to 16 per cent in 2025, through a State-run programme targeting producing families, many located in areas with a significant indigenous presence. The school meal programme had also been strengthened, benefitting more than 100,000 indigenous or Afro-Honduran students and subsequently helping to combat the levels of school dropout. Two major storms in 2020 affected more than 4.6 million people and presented a turning point in the State’s climate strategy. In response, the State had strengthened its response, including adaptation measures in the food policy, water management and local capacity building. The Forestry Conservation Institute had dedicated the sustainable management of more than 200,000 hectares of land to indigenous organizations. The State was committed to including “ethnic groups” within data systems to overcome data challenges.
Honduras had 1,213 bilingual cultural education centres, with tens of thousands of children participating in them each year. The multicultural curriculum reflected respect for indigenous peoples, discussing colonialism and the struggles of racism in today’s reality. The literacy “Yes I can” initiative included a bilingual educational component; 170 scholarships had been given to the children of divers with disabilities from 2020 to 2023, with 255 planned for the next three-year period. The State offered training on bilingual and cultural education.
Follow-up Questions by Committee Experts
GUAN JIAN, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said 52 per cent of the complaints of forced displacement were filed by women. How many land titles had been granted to indigenous and Afro-descendant women during the period under review? What actions had been taken to combat gender-based violence against these groups of women? What protection and reparation measures were granted to victims, including the establishment of shelters in rural areas and comprehensive care services? Could information be provided on cases of gender-based violence, including sexual violence, against indigenous and Afro-descendant women in contexts of territorial conflict, militarisation of public security and evictions?
Other Committee Experts asked follow-up questions, including on how structural inequality would be addressed; if there was an external international claim for reparation for colonial wrongs; plans for the Second Decade for People of African Descent; how the State party understood the concept of free and informed consent for indigenous women; the mechanisms in place to ensure indigenous women were treated as rights holders; the state of progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals in regards to persons of African descent; the situation of Afro-Hondurans in prisons; and housing policies for indigenous communities and Afro-Hondurans.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said six offices facilitated access to birth registration for women and their families. There were also offices in commercial and shopping centres, as well as migration centres.
Honduras recognised the importance of continuing to adopt measures to guarantee equal opportunities, including equal access to employment for indigenous communities and Afro-Hondurans. The inclusive employment legislation adopted in 2025 was a significant step forward, promoting the employment of indigenous peoples and Afro-Hondurans in the public and private sectors via quotas.
The State had developed actions to develop training and capacity building, as well as increased safety standards for divers from the Miskito communities. Training had been provided to more than 450 divers, and they were required to have a diving license issued. Resources had also been allocated to meet the needs of divers with disabilities and their families and provide them with support.
The sanction for femicide had been raised to 30 years imprisonment, and up to 40 years when there were aggravating circumstances, including if the perpetrator was an agent of the State. For the first time, Honduras had been measuring lethal violence against women, disaggregated by population groups. There had been 32 violent deaths of indigenous women in the period reviewed, which would be the first step towards a femicide register. The State was working to ensure gender sensitivity in budgeting. There were shelters in all parts of the country, with an increased presence in regions with the highest levels of violence.
Closing Statements
SAÚL VICENTE VÁZQUEZ, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, thanked Honduras for its active participation in the dialogue, as well as all those who had made the dialogue possible. The delegation’s in-depth responses were appreciated, which had enabled the Committee to address serious issues relating to indigenous groups in Honduras. It was regretful that some questions, including on the disappearances of indigenous human rights defenders, had gone unanswered. The State party was urged to send any answers which were lacking in writing.
LEDA LIZETHE GARCÍA PAGAN, Secretary of State in the Office of Human Rights of Honduras and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the opportunity to pursue the dialogue, which was an opportunity for accountability. Forging a society free of all forms of discrimination was an ongoing task; there needed to be tangible policies and actions to overcome the divides which had historically affected indigenous peoples and Afro-Hondurans. The comments, questions and recommendations put forward by the Committee would address the State’s shortcomings and would be considered seriously. Honduras thanked the Committee for the frank, open and respectful exchange and reiterated the State’s willingness to continue working with human rights mechanisms.
GUN KUT, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the dialogue. The Committee reminded all States that there was a zero-tolerance policy of harassment or intimidation against civil society organizations. Honduras was commended for submitting its previous follow-up report on time and the Committee hoped the next report would also be as punctual. The State party was also commended for having paid its regular budget assessment to the United Nations in 2026.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CERD26.013E