In Dialogue with Honduras, Experts of the Committee on the Rights of Migrant Workers Commend Honduras on Progress in Defending Migrants Rights, Raise Issues Concerning Hondurans Deported from the United States and Family Reunification
The Committee on Migrant Workers this afternoon concluded its consideration of the second periodic report of Honduras on how it implements the provisions of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, with Committee Experts commending the State’s human rights based migration policies, while raising issues concerning how Honduras was supporting migrant workers deported from the United States and how it facilitated the family reunification process.
Mohammed Charef, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, welcomed that the State party’s migration policies were human rights based, and commended the progress made by the State party in defending the rights of migrants.
Pablo Ceriani Cernadas, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked what assistance consular agents were providing to Hondurans in the United States who were being arrested and deported? Was the State party planning to raise cases in United States courts regarding the deterioration of the rights of Honduran migrants in the United States? Could more information on the June 2025 agreement with the United States be provided? How did it guarantee due process rights and the rights enshrined in the Convention? Where were returnees placed and which authorities were involved in returns? What opportunities did deportees have to access social security?
Another Committee Expert asked what was preventing Honduras from implementing the provisions of the Convention regarding the protection of children who were on the move? Could more information be provided about the family reunification process for children who went through Honduras and came through Venezuela, Colombia and Haiti? How did the consular services protect Honduran children who had emigrated abroad? What coordination mechanisms existed to unite the work of the consulates and their work with foreign authorities, to prevent extended detention periods and ensure children were able to return?
The delegation said under an agreement with the United States, 10 persons whose asylum requests had been rejected by the United States were transferred to Honduras every month. Upon transfer, these persons were assisted to submit asylum applications and to access work in Honduras while their applications were being processed. Returnees had access to social security in Honduras on the same footing as other workers in the State. The Honduran State had supported migrants in court cases related to the ending of the “temporary protection status” agreement with the United States, and had also supported migrants in the United States to return to Honduras, waiving fees for the transport of their belongings.
The delegation said Honduras had a specific centre for supporting cases relating to children and their families, which was unique in the region. Centres ensuring dignified returns were located across the national territory, specialising in identifying vulnerable children. Honduras was currently working to strengthen the family unit, as this was where children would receive the most support. Around 842 boys and 991 girls had been supported this year, and over 900 families
Introducing the report, Zulmit Rivera Zúniga, Undersecretary for Consular and Migratory Affairs, Secretary of State in the Office of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Honduras and head of the delegation, said the Honduran Government was committed to settling a historical debt in terms of the protection of the human rights of migrants. To address the humanitarian crisis at the borders due to the high migratory flow, the National Congress granted in 2022 a migratory amnesty to foreigners in irregular transit, benefiting 1.1 million migrants. This amnesty exempted migrants who entered the country irregularly from paying the administrative penalty previously established in the migration and aliens law, allowing them to transit freely and safely through the territory.
In concluding remarks, Edgar Corzo Sosa, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, commended Honduras for appearing before the Committee with a delegation chiefly composed of women and young people. The contributions made by Honduras to the region could be very positive for everyone. The Committee stood available to help the State to draft better laws.
In her concluding remarks, Ms. Rivera Zúniga thanked the Committee Experts for their commitment to the dialogue. For over 10 years, Honduras had dealt with a deep democratic breakdown, which had caused great suffering and increased the prevalence of migration. Honduras was firmly committed to protecting migrant workers and protecting the democratic health of the country.
The delegation of Honduras was made up of representatives of the Inter-Agency Commission against Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking in Persons; the Office of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation; the Office of Human Rights; the National Institute of Migration; and the Permanent Mission of Honduras to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee on Migrant Workers’ forty-first session is being held from 1 to 11 December. All documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. Meeting summary releases can be found here. Webcasts of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.
The Committee will next meet in public on Thursday, 11 December at 5:30 p.m. to close its forty-first session.
Report
The Committee has before it the second periodic report of Honduras (CMW/C/HND/2).
Presentation of the Report
ZULMIT RIVERA ZÚNIGA, Undersecretary for Consular and Migratory Affairs, Secretary of State in the Office of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Honduras and head of the delegation, said Honduras was experiencing a historic moment of profound relevance. Iris Xiomara Castro, the first woman President of Honduras, was elected in 2021 with the popular support of the population, putting the State back on the path of democracy after the coup d'état of 2009. The Government was committed to settling a historical debt in terms of the protection of the human rights of migrants.
Honduras had seen a surge in migrant caravans in recent years, affected by factors such as extreme poverty, violence, extortion and lack of opportunities in the region, and later exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Eta and Iota storms in 2021. To address the humanitarian crisis at the borders due to the high migratory flow, the National Congress granted in 2022 a migratory amnesty to foreigners in irregular transit, benefiting 1.1 million migrants. This amnesty exempted migrants who entered the country irregularly from paying the administrative penalty previously established in the migration and aliens law, allowing them to transit freely and safely through the territory. The State party had also created the Migration Governance Council in 2024, which coordinated migration policies, guaranteeing the human rights of people on the move. The Council paid attention to groups in vulnerable situations, with an emphasis on the reunification of unaccompanied migrant children.
To address the migratory emergency generated by the tightening of policies in the United States, which resulted in the mass deportation of Honduran migrants, the President, in February 2025, ordered the implementation of the national emergency strategy for the protection of Honduran migrants. This strategy authorised the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to adopt agreements with non-profit organizations or the hiring of law firms in the United States to guarantee legal assistance and comprehensive protection for Honduran migrants in an irregular situation. Honduras had signed a cooperation agreement with the United States, which allowed foreigners expelled from that territory to apply for refuge. To date, within the framework of this agreement, 16 people had been received on three flights, and five had requested refuge.
The “Brother Sister” return programme, which offered support, including financial support, and incentives to facilitate the reintegration of returned Hondurans, was also in place.
The State’s comprehensive employment system provided labour guidance to returnees. In the public sector, jobs in infrastructure, security and the environment had been expanded, including through the Padre Andrés Tamayo reforestation programme and the zero deforestation plan 2030. During 2025, through municipal offices for reintegration and support for returnees, almost 40,000 returnees, 13 per cent of whom were children, had been provided with psychological care, school reintegration, entrepreneurial support, and school kits, among other services.
The State had referred some 60 cases for DNA sampling as part of efforts to find missing Honduran migrants. It had a protocol for the search for missing migrants, through which 211 deaths had been reported. Psychosocial support was provided to relatives of disappeared Hondurans. The State had funded the repatriation of the bodies of 327 Hondurans who had died abroad.
Honduras had also implemented a national protocol for the comprehensive care and protection of children in migration situations. In October 2023, a bi-national protocol for the protection and care of unaccompanied migrant children and adolescents was adopted between Honduras and Guatemala, which guaranteed the implementation of standards for the protection of children and adolescents in the context of human mobility.
The National Institute for Migration had drafted a new migration and aliens act, which was harmonised with the Convention and incorporated a gender and non-discrimination approach. By addressing the structural causes of irregular migration, Honduras had helped achieve a reduction in returns, from 89,000 people in 2022 to a projected 40,000 by 2025. Over this period, there had also been a 60 per cent reduction in poverty in the State.
The State had also strengthened irregular migrant assistance centres, which served foreigners in transit through the national territory. These centres provided comprehensive care services, including medical and legal services, psychological care, food, clothing, hygiene and biosecurity kits. A budget of 200 million lempiras was allocated for the construction of five centres in Choluteca, Ocotepeque, Tegucigalpa, Trojes and Danlí.
Honduras had an agreement in force with Spain that allowed its citizens to work regularly in that country, guaranteeing the protection of all the rights of Honduran workers. Between 2023 and 2025, approximately 800 people participated annually in this programme, and by 2026 an increase of 500 additional people was expected.
To strengthen individual and collective security, the State had this year implemented the “Solution to Crime” plan and an institutional strengthening project with a gender and human rights approach. These efforts had produced a 24 per cent reduction in homicides between 2022 and 2025; 73 municipalities had had no homicides in 2025, and the homicide rate was currently at its lowest point in the last 20 years. The State party had also reactivated the hotline for reporting violence against women and implemented the “MARÍA” chatbot, a free and confidential tool for the immediate support of women victims of violence. The “911” application was also created, which supported Honduran migrants with legal and medical advice and tools for economic and social reintegration.
The Government of President Iris Xiomara Castro had marked a shift towards a migration policy oriented towards human rights, the protection of migrants, and inter-institutional coordination. It was firmly committed to the promotion and protection of the human rights of all migrants.
Questions by Committee Experts
MOHAMMED CHAREF, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, welcomed that the State party’s migration policies were human rights based, and commended the progress made by the State party in defending the rights of migrants. Honduras was at the heart of a strategic migration corridor in the Americas. Internal displacement was a major issue in the State, with many displaced due to violence and adverse climate conditions influenced by climate change. Could the State party provide figures on internal displacement?
The State was also a major host of migrants, particularly from El Salvador. It was welcome that Honduras had signed agreements with hosting countries such as the United States and Spain. Could the State party provide information about the recent bilateral and regional agreements it had signed and their impact on migrants?
Honduras had an unbelievably high level of homicides, many of which were the result of gang actions. A high rate of crimes perpetrated by gangs were reportedly not investigated and went unpunished. How was the State party addressing this issue?
Mr. Charef called on the State party to collect more data on migration. How was the diaspora involved in developing migration policies? What was being done to develop efficient cooperation with other countries in South America related to migration?
PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee had previously called on the State party to reform its immigration law of 2003 and its accompanying 2004 regulation, which implemented rules preventing persons which specific characteristics from entering or residing in Honduras, including persons with disabilities. A reform bill had since been developed; what was its status? What changes would it implement? Would the 2004 regulation be amended?
What assistance were consular agents providing to Hondurans in the United States who were being arrested and deported? Could the State party provide statistics on Honduran families who had been separated due to these deportations? Was the State party planning to raise cases in United States courts regarding the deterioration of the rights of Honduran migrants in the United States? Could more information on the June 2025 agreement with the United States be provided? How did it guarantee due process rights and the rights enshrined in the Convention? Where were returnees placed and which authorities were involved in returns? Was Honduras accepting returns of asylum seekers from the United States? What had the State party done to support migrant workers who had had their labour rights violated? Was it supporting migrants to sue their United States employers when they were unfairly dismissed? What opportunities did deportees have to access social security? How were child returnees from the United States being included in the education system and how was Honduras supporting their reintegration?
How was the State party protecting the rights of Honduran women working in the care sector in Spain, who were at risk of abuse? Which authorities were involved in addressing the phenomenon of reverse migration? What amnesty and other protection measures were in place?
EDGAR CORZO SOSA, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked about the scope of the new bill presented by the National Institute of Migration. The State party needed to harmonise this bill and other legislation on migration with the Convention.
The Committee noted that there were protocols for the search of Hondurans who had disappeared in Mexico and a strategy for locating migrants on the route to the United States; family members of the disappeared were provided with financial and other support. However, there were reports of enforced disappearances of migrant workers and their family members. Could the State party provide data on investigations into such cases? Could families participate in search and investigation processes? What technical standards were used for the identification of individuals? Was repatriation carried out in a dignified manner? Was there a national policy on disappearances? What challenges was the State facing in addressing this issue?
The Committee had previously called on the State party to draft a complete consular policy on the protection of migrant workers abroad; had this been done? What had been done to set up a standardised mechanism to collect quantitative and qualitative data on migrants abroad? Some 1,110 unaccompanied Honduran children had been identified in the United States, 883 of whom had been reunified with their families. What had happened to the rest of these children?
How was the State party disseminating the content of the Convention and following up on its implementation? Why did it continue to hold a reservation to allowing the Committee to receive individual communications, despite having allowed other treaty bodies to receive such communications?
Did the State party provide migrants’ families with guidance on the use of remittances and their taxation? How was the remittances fund regulated and how was money channelled through it?
One Expert said that the State party’s voluntary “Brother Sister” return programme sounded very promising and could be a model for other developing countries. Which Government agencies oversaw this programme and was the Convention considered in the programme’s development? How could returning migrants access the programme? Was the portability of social security part of this programme?
Another Committee Expert commended the work achieved by the State party at the institutional and legislative levels, as well as at the practical level, to guarantee the rights of migrant workers. One Expert congratulated the State party on having engaged with the International Organization for Migration on drafting a sustainable migration policy for 2020 to 2024.
Committee Experts also asked whether the State party collected data on unaccompanied minors; how the State supported migrant children with irregular status to access their rights; whether the State party had assessed the effectiveness of assistance mechanisms for migrant children included in bilateral agreements on migration; how the Government factored the needs of migrant children with disabilities into migration policies; and how the programme on support for the children of migrant workers guaranteed access to education and other rights.
Experts further asked about measures in place to protect domestic workers, only 3.7 per cent of whom received at least the minimum wage, and monitor the employers of domestic workers and working conditions for such workers; whether domestic work was legally recognised as employment; whether draft bills on domestic workers and the protection of children had been adopted; when the State party would ratify International Labour Organization Convention 169; the impact of recent budget reductions on access to education for foreign children and the children of migrants; and measures enacted to take care of persons forced to migrate due to climate change.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the draft bill on the reform of migration legislation that had been developed by the Migration Office was currently being reviewed in Congress. The reform process had started in 2024. The draft bill took a human rights-based approach and included measures for temporary protection and the removal of administrative sanctions for irregular entry.
Under an agreement with the United States, 10 persons whose asylum requests had been rejected by the United States were transferred to Honduras every month. Upon transfer, these persons were assisted to submit asylum applications and to access work in Honduras while their applications were being processed. Persons who wished to return to their home countries were housed in migrant host centres and supported in the return process.
There was a bilateral agreement with the United States to tackle workplace discrimination of Honduran migrants. Honduran migrants in the United States who made complaints of workplace discrimination were provided with legal support and guidance and were supported to return to Honduras when necessary. Returnees had access to social security in Honduras on the same footing as other workers in the State. Efforts were underway to coordinate pensions and welfare payment systems for returnees with other Latin American States.
The Labour Code regulated domestic work, including renumeration for domestic workers, the length of their working day and rest breaks. A policy on domestic work and care had been drafted with the support of the International Labour Organization. The Ministry of Labour had spearheaded the process of ratification of International Labour Organization Convention 189 on domestic workers, which had involved consultations with workers’ organizations.
The State party used its “Semore” monitoring system to ensure compliance and follow-up with the recommendations of treaty bodies and draft reports for these bodies.
The Government had established a protection system for children and adolescents which worked to address the root causes of violence against children, child labour and irregular migration, and supported family reunification. The National Council for Children also worked to expand protections for migrant and returnee children, in cooperation with civil society. The State party prioritised the best interests of the child in return and reunification processes. The bi-national protocol with Guatemala was a key tool in protecting children and adolescents moving through these two States, promoting the reunification of unaccompanied minors with their families.
There was an official responsible for the protection of migrants in all Honduran consulates abroad. The State party had opened five new consulates in the United States over the reporting period, as well as new offices in Mexico and several other countries. Mobile consular offices had also been set up in 16 states of the United States, which offered the same services to migrants as fixed offices did. Some 900,000 migrants abroad had access to passport and identification documents thanks to consular services. Through consular offices, Honduran migrants abroad could access services such as low-cost loans, banking services and legal aid.
The law on labour inspection allowed for the inspection of homes where domestic workers were employed when employers permitted such inspections. In the last five years, there had been 17 complaints of human rights violations by domestic workers received by the State, all of which had been resolved. Four criminal cases of sexual abuse against domestic workers had been filed over the same period. The State party was committed to increasing data collection on domestic workers and would appreciate external support in this regard.
Budgetary allocations to the solidarity fund for migrants had been increased recently. Members of the diaspora had been involved in reform of the solidarity fund.
Honduras was given “temporary protected status” in a 1998 agreement with the United States, which granted Honduran migrants protection from deportation, but the United States had decided this year to remove this agreement because of development progress made by Honduras. The Honduran State had supported migrants in court cases related to the ending of this agreement, and had also supported migrants in the United States to return to Honduras, waiving fees for the transport of their belongings. The “Brother Sister” return programme had been a resounding success, ensuring a dignified, voluntary return for Hondurans. Under the programme, returnees could access food, transport and solidarity vouchers, and were provided with support to obtain identification papers and find work.
The protocol for disappeared persons was an intersectoral tool that sought to locate disappeared persons, including migrants. Under the protocol, training was provided to staff working in search and identification to strengthen these processes. Families were involved in search processes from the very beginning.
Questions by Committee Experts
MOHAMMED CHAREF, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, congratulated the State party on having established new mobile consular offices in the United States. What assistance was provided to migrants under threat of return? How many Honduran migrants were currently in detention in the United States and elsewhere? Had returning migrants been successfully reintegrated or had they attempted to leave Honduras again? What was being done to tackle xenophobia in Honduras? How was the State party addressing the activities of gangs? What results had been achieved in this regard by the state of emergency and the deployment of the army in prisons?
PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked whether migrants returning from the United States were supported to access the financial contributions to social security that they had made in the United States. Could the delegation provide more information on agreements related to migration made with Canada and Cuba? How was the State party assisting its nationals abroad to access voting rights? What was the State party doing for Honduran children involved in child labour in the United States and Mexico? How was the State party assisting birth registration for Honduran nationals abroad?
EDGAR CORZO SOSA, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked what was being done to expand the comprehensive system for the rights of children and adolescents, which did not have a presence in many municipal centres. Could the delegation provide more disaggregated data on Honduran migrants with disabilities? What was being done to support migrants with disabilities? Why had some migrants with disabilities been sent to psychiatric centres? What was the reason for data gaps in the countries of destination of Honduran migrants?
It was welcome that the National Human Rights Commission had been strengthened recently – its budget had been increased by 19 per cent. What follow-up had been conducted related to the 56 complaints submitted to the Commission related to abuse of migrants abroad and deaths and disappearances of migrants on migration routes?
Another Committee Expert posed questions on whether Honduras planned to ratify International Labour Organization Conventions 97, 129, 143, 151, 187, 190; the resources devoted by the State party to labour inspections; and the State’s strategy for protecting women in the workplace.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the asylum cooperative agreement was signed in June 2025 between Honduras and the United States; it stated that the United States would send to Honduras 10 persons per month who had been denied refugee status. This agreement had begun operating in October this year and 16 people had been transferred so far. Individuals were received at an airport and transferred to a migration detention centre to receive medical and psychosocial support.
The National Migratory Institute was providing support to five families who had welcomed babies on the national territory, including birth registration support. Anyone who was born in Honduras acquired nationality through birth. There was no bilateral agreement between the United States and Honduras on social security, meaning there was no compatibility of social security payments.
Honduras had a national commission devoted to child labour. Inspections in the area of child labour had been bolstered. Nobody under the age of 14 was authorised to work. Currently, registers concerning child labour did not automatically disaggregate the migratory status of the children. Agriculture, construction and informal trade were the sectors with the highest prevalence of child labour. Local inspection offices had been established, as well as standardised instruments to conduct auditing of labour inspection visits, to ensure they were competent. In 2024, 164 such audits were conducted.
Honduras was in a technical and social process regarding International Labour Organization Convention 190. It had not yet been ratified but a formal discussion process had been initiated, reflecting the clear will to move towards adoption. The State was also in technical analysis processes regarding other conventions to ensure provisions were in line with national legislation and international commitments.
Around 900 individuals had been identified as being beneficiaries of social rehabilitation, labour guidance and training, and support, confirming that holistic programmes were supporting migrants from the initial contact until they were integrated into the labour market. A programme had been created between foreign companies and Honduran labourers. In the past few years, Honduras had increased employment opportunities with the United States, Spain and Canada, and had drawn up agreements with these countries.
A national policy was in place which dealt with the protection of children’s rights. Up to 2025, there were 201 councils at the local level for children’s support. This work ensured proper collaboration with the community to ensure support for children.
The programme for combatting trafficking aimed to identify different activities to provide support for victims, particularly those who were irregular migrants. Two regional offices had been established in the border areas, and there were six offices in total. A fund was provided by the President which provided first and secondary care for victims and their relatives. The law provided for psychosocial care and social reintegration. In 2025, 280 victims who were survivors of trafficking were rescued, and more than 4,000 indirect victims, such as family members, were provided with support. An awareness raising campaign “Human Beings Are Not For Sale” had been launched in this regard.
There had been a 23 per cent drop in the number of homicides in Honduras. The country’s main cities were no longer among the most dangerous cities in the world, which was good news. The national statistics households survey was recently published, which found that the Government had achieved a fall to 60.1 per cent of general poverty, from 73 per cent, which was a historic figure.
The Vienna Convention established how a consulate worked. The detention of Hondurans abroad had fallen significantly. In 2022, there were 213,000 detained Hondurans in the United States; in 2025 this had fallen by more than 80 per cent, meaning around 40,000 people were now detained abroad. Around a million Hondurans lived abroad, but this did not mean that one million were returning to the country. The State had strengthened the consular network and had increased visits to places of detention. Honduras facilitated transit; it did not prevent it. Around 35,000 Hondurans who had returned home had benefited from grants, including for entrepreneurs.
The healthcare system in Honduras had been strengthened by the Government, with the aim of supporting the country’s most vulnerable. Civil society had been involved in the events which put together the bilateral protocol with Guatemala. The whole of the migration route to the United States needed to consider the most vulnerable. If this protocol was properly enforced, it would allow progress in this regard. The rumours surrounding the bilateral health workers agreement with Cuba were baseless. Cuba provided healthcare professionals who travelled to Honduras to work in hospitals, particularly to provide ophthalmological services to the elderly.
Over a million passports had been issued through Honduras’ consular services. Citizenship was also able to be granted through the consulates, regardless of where someone lived. The State’s legal frameworks had become adaptable and provided services to migrants in transit and bi-nationals living abroad. Over 11,000 Honduran minors born abroad had been registered, particularly those living in Spain who had previously been considered stateless. Another programme had been organised to recognise those living in the United States, resulting in the registration of 400,000 Hondurans.
A body regulating elections in the country had decided that the only people able to vote from abroad were those Hondurans living in the United States. During the last elections, over half of those who had been eligible to vote from abroad did so. The elections process was successful, thanks to a biometric voting system.
Questions by Committee Experts
MOHAMMED CHAREF, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked about the Garifuna people, who were one of the most structured groups of Honduran diasporas abroad. Could information about the acts of xenophobia against this group be provided? Regarding female migration in the agreements signed with Spain and Canada, women often worked in difficult contexts, carrying out fruit picking and other demanding work. Women with children who were recruited left their children at home, which created issues for the children. Could the delegation comment on this? Monetary transfers represented practically a quarter of the State’s gross domestic product; however, the transfer cost was one of the highest in the world. What was being done to reduce this fee? What was being done to integrate those remittances into development plans?
EDGAR CORZO SOSA, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked what had happened with the plan to improve the national protection system? Was there a protocol in place to investigate attacks against human rights defenders, particularly those in the context of migration? What was the current situation encountered by migrant workers from Venezuela? What situation did they face with regard to permits? In 2024, the InterAmerican Human Rights Commission flagged structural issues leading to internal displacement in Honduras. Had budgetary allocation and protection for victims been actioned? The amnesty mentioned in the opening statement was a positive step and the Committee congratulated the State party on this achievement. It would be good if this content was enshrined in a law, so it was not a decree that was constantly being extended.
It was positive that DNA identification was being used in court cases. What outcomes had been obtained from the search and investigation mechanism? Did it involve the participation of families? There was a solidarity remittance project and 17 community programmes consisting of donations from the diaspora to schools, carried out with the support of the Government. Was this project being reactivated? Were there other things being done in this vein? What was being done to ensure these programmes could benefit more people?
PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked about the precise role of the State regarding rulings concerning the labour market and migratory control. What reforms had been carried out in the mental healthcare system? How many violations were taking place through private recruitment agencies? What were the rates of femicide of migrants? What were the labour conditions and situations of migrants’ rights in El Salvador? Were there indigenous communities from Honduras who were affected by displacement?
A Committee Expert asked for information regarding the circumstances of migrants in transit? How many days did migrants typically stay in transit? How were they registered? The new migration policy in the United States had had a serious impact on migrants in Honduras. How did the process of repatriation of Honduras migrants take place from the United States? How were they received? How was the integration process for children of these migrants into the education system ensured? Was there statistical data on the number of children born abroad? How did the State engage civil society in the process of creating migration policies? What did Honduras view as the main causes of migration and what was the State doing to reduce those causes? Was there a gender or human rights action plan? Were police officers educated on how to protect women in cases of violations? Could more information on data on missing persons, including migrants, be provided? Which was the responsible institution for identification?
Another Committee Expert asked how the State ensured people’s personal data was protected? What was preventing Honduras from implementing the provisions of the Convention regarding the protection of children who were on the move? What were the main obstacles? Could more information be provided about the family reunification process for children who went through Honduras and came through Venezuela, Colombia and Haiti? How did the consular services protect Honduran children who had emigrated abroad? How did they address the issue of migrant children, especially those who were vulnerable and ended up in Mexio and Guatemala? What coordination mechanisms existed to unite the work of the consulates and their work with foreign authorities, to prevent extended detention periods and ensure children were able to return?
An Expert asked for more information about administrative appeals; did they involve the inspectorate and domestic workers? Were these appeals which the inspectorate had received in connection with domestic work? What had been the outcome of the cases which had reached the appeals court? Where did the act on street children, discussed with the Committee on the Rights of the Child, stand? Would the scope include migrant and domestic workers and their children, who might end up in the street? What was being done by the State to help internally displaced persons to recover their homes from which they were forced to flee due to violence? What was the scope of the law passed for those who had been forced to flee due to violence and crime? Were climate refugees covered by the humanitarian strategy?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the National Migration Institute had drawn up a bill in line with the Convention and other international human rights treaties ratified by Honduras. Reporting channels had been implemented by the Institute as a direct mechanism for reporting violations of rights for migrant workers and their families. Around 95 per cent of people in transit across Honduras left the country within a couple of days.
Regarding the regulation governing the law on those who had been internally displaced, a range of consultations had been carried out to ensure the regulation was in line with human rights and gender principles. Protection and follow-up were provided through humanitarian channels for those who had been forced away from their homes. The law on displaced persons only dealt with people who were victims of violence, but other units dealt with those displaced due to reasons related to climate change.
The Government had issued property titles, and Garifuna property and ancestral land had been protected. Around 9,000 hectares had been issued to Garifuna communities, reflecting the Government’s commitment to protecting these populations. The temporary work programme promoted by the State had strict regulations, including requiring a letter from the foreign company. A training service trained agents to ensure the best operations of employment agencies. Some 22 employment agencies were registered nationally in these trainings.
Honduras had a specific centre for supporting cases relating to children and their families, which was unique in the region. Centres ensuring dignified returns were located across the national territory, specialising in identifying vulnerable children. Honduras was currently working to strengthen the family unit, as this was where children would receive the most support. Around 842 boys and 991 girls had been supported this year, and over 900 families.
A protocol was created in 2022 to ensure the protection and care of the data obtained through DNA. The mental health act had been adopted, but the State had not yet been able to make it fully effective. An arena had been created to ensure participation of the diaspora.
Closing Remarks
MOHAMMED CHAREF, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, thanked the delegation for the fluid and concise dialogue. Migration in the region was a complex issue which raised serious challenges, particularly due to a lack of data. Honduras had established holistic policies which needed data to be effective. A lot had been learned from the dialogue. Despite the challenges, Honduras had made many efforts to protect the rights of migrants and launched many projects in this regard. The State should be commended; it was a model in the region.
PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, thanked Honduras for the useful dialogue. Honduras had been dealing with deep structural problems for years. The area was one of the most complicated in the world, due to the number of people travelling through Honduras. The measures adopted by the United States had added to this difficult situation. The Committee believed Honduras would find solutions, and it was hoped that it would implement the Committee’s recommendations.
EDGAR CORZO SOSA, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, commended Honduras for appearing before the Committee with a delegation chiefly composed of women and young people. This would positively contribute to changes in the country. The Committee was not underestimating the effort the country was making, but the regional context was very complicated. The contributions made by Honduras to the region could be very positive for everyone. The Committee stood available to help the State to draft better laws.
ZULMIT RIVERA ZÚNIGA, Undersecretary for Consular and Migratory Affairs, Secretary of State in the Office of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Honduras and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee Experts for their commitment to the dialogue. Honduras had laid out the challenges and reaffirmed the State’s commitment to ensure that the rights of migrants were realised. For over 10 years, Honduras had dealt with a deep democratic breakdown, which had caused great suffering and increased the prevalence of migration. Only a State which was fully democratic had the authority to demand the respect of its people. Honduras was firmly committed to protecting migrant workers and protecting the democratic health of the country.
___________
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.
CMW25.010E