As of early May, Honduras continued to receive some 100 returned men and women from the United States every day, according to the IOM (5 May). Although no cases of Covid-19 amongst returnees had yet to be detected, IOM reported that it was helping prepare Honduran authorities in the case of an outbreak, including working […]
Honduras: Covid-19 and Detention
In mid-March, the Honduran government declared a state of “health emergency” and suspended all visits to prisons following reports of two confirmed cases of Covid-19 in the country. In addition, staff and detainees must wear masks in Court. The GDP has been unable to obtain information concerning measures taken within the “Centros de Atención al […]
Last updated: September 2015
Honduras Immigration Detention Profile
Honduras has one of the highest murder rates in the world, is plagued with very high levels of crime and gang violence, and most of its population is mired in poverty. In recent years, it has seen tens of thousands of adults and children seek the assistance of people smugglers to flee the country; upwards of a million Hondurans (or about 10 percent of the population) live abroad. In 2014, the arrival of thousands of Honduran children at the U.S.-Mexico border sparked a public panic in the United States, and many children and families ended up in hastily established detention centres as they awaited deportation back to Honduras.[1]
Honduras also serves as a transit country for people from neighbouring countries as well as so-called extracontinentals seeking passage north. A vast majority of transiting people come from Cuba, but there are also migrants from Nicaragua, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and India.[2]
Undocumented migrants are subject to detention even though the country’s immigration legislation fails to clearly provide for this practice. According to statistics provided by the Migration Directorate the country detained 2,526 migrants in 2013 and 1,198 in 2012.[3] The main countries of origin of detainees are Cuba, India, Bangladesh, Somalia, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia.[4]
The country’s migration policy is provided in the 2003 Migration Law (Ley de Migracion y Extranjeria) and the 2004 Migration Regulation (Reglamento de la Ley de Migracion y Extranjeria). Both the Law and Regulation are vague on the issue of detention. The only provision that explicitly mentions immigration detention is article 8(16) of the Migration Law, which describes the responsibilities of the Migration Directorate (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería), recently rebranded as National Institute for Migration (Instituto Nacional de Migracion). One of its responsibilities is to temporarily detain (custodiar, literally “to guard” or “to keep”) migrants in special assistance centres (“centros especiales de atencion”) while their migration status is being decided or deportation or expulsion organized.
Grounds for deportation and expulsion appear to indirectly serve as grounds for detention. Under the Migration Law, deportation may be ordered when: a non-citizen has entered or stayed in the country using false documents; remains in the country following the cancellation of a right to stay; or has entered the country without authorization (Migration Law, article 88). Foreigners also face expulsion after serving penal sentences, for undertaking activities not allowed by his/her permit, or for re-entering to the country after expulsion (Migration Law, article 89).
The law fails to provide a maximum length of detention. However, authorities interpret some provisions of the Migration Law, which are unrelated to detention, to limit the length of detention to 90 days. In practice, however, migrants tend to be detained for two to four weeks. There are no alternatives to detention, in law or in practice.[5]
The Migration Law also fails to provide any detention-related procedural safeguards. Observers in Honduras told the Global Detention Project that in practice detained migrants are informed about reasons for their detention and have access to a lawyer, paid by them, if they request. However, in the majority of cases, the only legal advice given to detainees is provided by civil society organizations. Some migration officers speak English and can help detainees understand the process; however, this practice is not systematic or predictable. The only possibility to appeal detention is to bring habeas corpus action. Yet, such appeals are extremely rare in practice. There is no automatic review of detention.[6]
Honduras operates two dedicated immigration detention facilities. Like its neighbours, the country employs euphemisms to name these centres, which are officially called Centros de Atención al Migrante Irregular (CAMI), or “Irregular Migrant Attention Centre.” (Nicaragua, for example, calls its facility the “Migrants Shelter Centre.”).The centres are located at the premises of the Migration Directorate in Tegucigalpa and Choluteca. Before opening the centres around 2010, migrants were already detained in these facilities, however in an informal manner. Both centres have a capacity to detain approximately 20 migrants but usually there are no more than 10 people on a given day.[7]
Men and women are detained separately. Minors, following a short period of detention while their age is determined, are released from the centres and placed in care centres managed by the National Directorate for Children and Family (Dirección Nacional de la Niñez y la Familia). If a child travels with his mother, they are both placed in a care centre.[8]
According to GDP sources in Honduras, the cost per detainee per day is around 12 USD (this includes only food, drinking water, and items of the basic hygiene).[9] Reportedly the conditions of detention are very basic, both in terms of food and equipment of the centres. In general, authorities tend to allow visits by civil society organizations. The Ombudsperson, who is authorized by law to monitor all the places of detention in the country, visits the centres on rare occasions.[10]
Honduras and U.S. Anti-Smuggling Operations
Observers have criticized the United States for pressuring Honduras and its neighbours to detain transiting migrants because it is cheaper.[11] A case in point was Honduras’ involvement in U.S.-led anti-smuggling operations during the 1990s and 2000s called “Operation Disrupt,” which targeted migration and smuggling activities in the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, and Canada.[12]
In 1997, when “Disrupt” anti-smuggling operations were subsumed under the rubric a larger U.S. initiative called “Global Reach,” U.S. immigration officials significantly broadened the scope of their Latin American activities. These included undertaking annual multilateral interception operations with law enforcement personnel from dozens of Latin American countries. According to activists in these countries, during the operations, U.S. immigration agents accompanied local authorities to restaurants, hotels, border crossings, checkpoints, and airports to help identify and apprehend suspicious travelers.[13]
In a series of yearly press statements in the late 1990s and early 2000s, U.S. authorities proudly announced the results of each operation. In 2000, for example, the INS (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service) declared that year’s Disrupt operation, “Forerunner,” to be the “largest anti-smuggling operation ever conducted in the Western Hemisphere.” Involving agents from six Latin America countries, the operation nabbed 3,500 migrants and 38 smugglers.[14]
Forerunner was followed in 2001 by “Crossroads International,” which the INS again described as the “largest multinational anti-smuggling operation ever conducted in the Western Hemisphere,” this one resulting in the arrest of 75 smugglers and the interdiction of some 8,000 migrants from 39 countries. “The wide-ranging anti-smuggling operation was directed by the INS Mexico City District Office and involved … law enforcement officers in Columbia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, and Peru,” said a press statement.[15]
Officials in countries participating in the U.S.-led anti-smuggling operations often received U.S. budgetary assistance to help detain and deport migrants. In 2000, for example, the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB), which had sent a delegation to Central America to study regional migration issues, issued a scathing press release decrying U.S. interdiction activities in the region. As part of the trip, the bishops representatives visited a prison in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, that was filled with migrants who had been detained during Operation Forerunner. Said the press release:
“We are gravely concerned with the human impact of Operation Forerunner, a multilateral regional effort purportedly designed to apprehend and prosecute human smugglers, or ‘coyotes,’ who provide transport to migrants through the region and on their journey north. We strongly agree that these smugglers, who charge migrants as much as $5,000 to shepherd their trip, should be captured and brought to justice. However, Operation Forerunner has had the effect of targeting migrants more than the persons who smuggle them, resulting in many migrants being placed in substandard prisons in the region without representation or the opportunity to apply for asylum. … The results of Operation Forerunner give us pause as to the real objectives of the initiative. In each of the countries visited, the governments apprehended only a handful of ‘coyotes’ while capturing several thousand migrants, jailing many of them, and returning them to their countries. The U.S. government has been intimately involved in these interdiction efforts, offering teams of ‘advisors’ to the Central American governments and paying for the return of extra-regional migrants to their homes. As one U.S. embassy official informed us, ‘It is less expensive to take care of the problem here than when they reach the United States.’”[16]
[1] Telesur, “Migrant Mothers, Children Could Be Freed from US Detention,” 12 May 2015, "http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Migrant-Mothers-Children-Could-Be-Freed-from-US-Detention-20150512-0004.html"
[2] Hondudiario. "ACNUR conocerá causas de migración hondureña a Costa Rica." 29 January 2015. http://www.hondudiario.com/?q=node/16656
[3] Hondudiario. "ACNUR conocerá causas de migración hondureña a Costa Rica." 29 January 2015. http://www.hondudiario.com/?q=node/16656
[4] Undisclosed source. Phone calls with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). September 2015.
[5] Undisclosed source. “GDP Questionnaire on Honduras.” September 2014. Undisclosed source. Phone calls with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). September 2015.
[6] Undisclosed source. “GDP Questionnaire on Honduras.” September 2014. Undisclosed source. Phone calls with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). September 2015.
[7] Hondudiario. "ACNUR conocerá causas de migración hondureña a Costa Rica." 29 January 2015. http://www.hondudiario.com/?q=node/16656. Undisclosed source. Phone calls with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). September 2015.
[8] Undisclosed source. “GDP Questionnaire on Honduras.” September 2014.
[9] Undisclosed source. Email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). September 2014.
[10] Undisclosed source. Phone calls with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project). September 2015.
[11] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). 2000. “Statement on Visit to Central American Nations of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras.” 10 November 2000.
[12] For more detailed information about these anti-smuggling operations, see Michael Flynn, “There and Back Again: On the Diffusion of Immigration Detention,” Journal on Migration and Human Security, 2014, http://jmhs.cmsny.org/index.php/jmhs/article/view/31.
[13] Michael Flynn, “Donde Esta La Frontera,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July/August 2002, http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/publications/Flynn_frontera.pdf.
[14] U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). 2000. “INS and Central American Governments Disrupt Alien Smuggling Operations.” INS Press Release. October 17, 2000.
[15] U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). 2001. “Largest Multinational Alien Smuggling Operation Results in 7,898 Arrests in Latin America and Caribbean, International Cooperation of 14 Nations Called Key to Success,” INS Press Release. June 27, 2001.
[16] U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). 2000. “Statement on Visit to Central American Nations of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras.” 10 November 2000.
DETENTION STATISTICS
DETENTION CAPACITY
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION
ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT DATA
PRISON DATA
POPULATION DATA
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA & POLLS
LEGAL & REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
GROUNDS FOR DETENTION
DETENTION INSTITUTIONS
PROCEDURAL STANDARDS & SAFEGUARDS
COVID-19 DATA
TRANSPARENCY
MONITORING
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING BODIES
NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS (OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE)
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS (NGOs)
GOVERNMENTAL MONITORING BODIES
INTERNATIONAL DETENTION MONITORING
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES & TREATY BODIES
International Treaties Ratified
Ratification Year
Observation Date
OP ICESCR, Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
2018
2018
ICPED, International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
2008
2008
CTOCTP, Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children
2008
2008
CTOCSP, Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
2008
2008
OPCAT, Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
2006
2006
ICRMW, International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
2005
2005
CAT, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
1996
1996
Ratio of relevant international treaties ratified
Ratio: 17/19
Relevant Recommendations or Observations Issued by Treaty Bodies
Recommendation Year
Observation Date
Committee against Torture
Asylum and non-refoulement
20...While noting with satisfaction the efforts made by the State party to respond to the large influx of asylum-seekers and migrants in an irregular situation arriving in its territory, the Committee is concerned about reports that the State party has acted in breach of the principle of non-refoulement in some instances during the period under review...
21. The State party should:
(a) Ensure that no one may be expelled, returned or extradited to another
State where there are substantial grounds for believing that the individual concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture;
(h) Take the measures necessary to ensure appropriate reception conditions
in transit reception facilities for asylum-seekers, as well as the use of foster care for unaccompanied or separated asylum-seeking children;
(j) Ensure the suspensive effect of appeals against a decision on expulsion,
return, surrender, or extradition.
2024
2024
2024
Committee on Migrant Workers
37. The Committee recommends that the State party should strengthen actions aimed at protecting the right to freedom of Honduran migrant workers and their families in Mexico and the United States, in particular through:
(a) Initiatives and bilateral dialogues that aim to ensure that detention is used only as an exceptional measure and a last resort by States where Honduran migrant workers reside or are in transit;
(b) The strengthening, expansion and enhancement of consular actions aimed at protecting migrant workers and members of their families who are deprived of their liberty, particularly those detained for reasons of migration, through the provision of free legal assistance and the promotion of access to justice and other guarantees of due process. The Committee also recommends that the State party should regularly produce and disseminate qualitative and quantitative information on any form of deprivation of liberty suffered by migrant workers and members of their families in the State party. Furthermore, it recommends that any detention for reasons of migration should be in full conformity with existing legislation, in particular the Convention, and should be subject to the principle of exceptionality and in accordance with general comment No. 2 (2013) on the rights of migrant workers in an irregular situation and members of their families.
2016
2016
2016
Committee on Migrant Workers
§55. The Committee urges the State party to take all necessary steps to safeguard the rights of the various categories of children and adolescents in the context of migration. In particular, it recommends that the State party:
(a) Strengthen and deepen its cooperation with countries of transit and destination with a view to adopting policies and protocols designed to ensure that children’s rights in the context of migration are respected in practice; in particular, the State party should:
(i) End the detention of children on grounds of their migration status or that of their parents;
(ii) Devise alternatives — in law and in practice — to the detention of families and unaccompanied or separated minors, and ensure their implementation under the coordination of national and/or local organizations responsible for the comprehensive protection of children; [...]
2016
2016
2016
Committee on the Rights of the Child
§ 76. "In the light of the recommendations from its day of general discussion on the rights of all children in the context of international migration, held in 2012, the Committee recommends that the State party:
(a) Develop and implement a comprehensive human rights-based policy and programme to address the root causes of the irregular and unaccompanied migration of children;
(b) Take all measures necessary to end the administrative detention in third countries of migrant children waiting to be repatriated, and ensure that migrant children are informed about their legal status, fully understand their situation and have access to public defence services and/or guardians throughout the process. Children should also be informed that they may contact their consular services;
(c) Collect disaggregated data related to cases of children’s repatriation, including the reintegration of children in their families and communities;
(d) Collect disaggregated data on the situation of children in the State party left behind by migrant family members."
2015
2015
2015
Global Detention Project and Partner Submissions to Treaty Bodies
Date of Submission
Observation Date
2016
https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/submission-un-committee-migrant-workers-cmw-honduras
Global Detention Project
Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW)
25th Session (29 August – 7 September 2016)
State Report
Pending
2016
2016
> UN Special Procedures
Visits by Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council
Year of Visit
Observation Date
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
2004
2004
2015
> UN Universal Periodic Review
REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS MECHANISMS
Regional Legal Instruments
Year of Ratification (Treaty) / Transposed (Directive) / Adoption (Regulation)
Observation Date
CBDP, Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belem do Para)
1995
1995
HEALTH CARE PROVISION
HEALTH IMPACTS
COVID-19
Country Updates
As of early May, Honduras continued to receive some 100 returned men and women from the United States every day, according to the IOM (5 May). Although no cases of Covid-19 amongst returnees had yet to be detected, IOM reported that it was helping prepare Honduran authorities in the case of an outbreak, including working jointly with the US Agency for International Development on distributing testing kits.
The Honduran government has established locations in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula to house returned migrants from the United States and Mexico as they pass a 14-day period in quarantine. Data from the Consular and Immigration Observatory has revealed that between 1 March and 26 April, 5,822 persons were returned from the United States and Mexico. In addition, on 21 May, UNICEF reported that since early March, at least 1,000 unaccompanied migrant children have been returned from the USA to Mexico and northern Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras). Over the same period, at least 447 migrant children were returned from Mexico to Guatemala and Honduras. On 10 May, Mexico deported 42 Honduran nationals to Tegucigalpa, where they were placed in quarantine for 14 days. Amongst the returnees, there are two children, two women and 38 men.
UNICEF and other agencies have reported that limited public information about Covid-19 has caused confusion and fear among returnees and the communities they return to across the region. Within certain communities, there are worries that children and families returned from the US and Mexico could be carrying the virus. UNICEF has received reports of communities in Guatemala and Honduras barring physical entry to outside groups or strangers, including returnees, to prevent local transmission of the disease. A centre for returned migrants had to be closed as the local population protested as they feared that they would contract the disease.
The GDP has been unable to determine what if any measures have been taken to protect people in immigration proceedings in Honduras. However, the country has taken some steps in its prisons. On 12 March, when the government announced a state of emergency, all visits to prisons were suspended. In addition, staff and inmates received masks to wear during medical appointments or court hearings. As of mid-May, there had been three confirmed cases of Covid-19 within the country’s prisons and one death related to the disease in the prison of El Pozo. On 19 May, one detainee tested positive in the prison of El Porvenir. Authorities also announced that there would not be any new arrivals until further notice. Subsequently, on 21 May, an investigation revealed a lack of testing and isolation of prisoners who have had contact with sick inmates. 70 inmates shared common areas with the deceased prisoner and yet, very few measures have been taken since. Only 22 tests have reportedly been undertaken in the ‘El Pozo’ and ‘Tamara’ prisons.
In mid-March, the Honduran government declared a state of “health emergency” and suspended all visits to prisons following reports of two confirmed cases of Covid-19 in the country. In addition, staff and detainees must wear masks in Court. The GDP has been unable to obtain information concerning measures taken within the “Centros de Atención al Migrante Irregular” to avoid the spread of Covid-19. However, the Honduran government has put in place a plan of action in the “Centros de Atención al Migrante Retornado” to avoid contamination as it is estimated that between 250 and 400 Hondurans are returned to the country daily. Honduran authorities have indicated that “special treatment” to all returned persons will be provided and that the protocols established by the WHO are being followed.
Presidency: http://www.presidencia.gob.hn/
Judiciary Power: http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/Paginas/PJ.aspx
Superior Court of Auditors: http://www.tsc.gob.hn/
International Organisations
UNHCR Honduras Country Information Page: http://www.unhcr.org/honduras.html
IOM Honduaras Country Infromation Page: http://www.iom.int/countries/honduras
Media
Honduras News: http://www.hondurasnews.com/
La Prensa: http://www.laprensa.hn/
El Heraldo: http://www.elheraldo.hn/
NGOs and Research Institutions
Casa Alianza: http://casa-alianza.org.hn/
