With regard to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the IACHR received information regarding the recent reform of the Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which gives the Attorney General’s Office the authority to rotate prosecutors without their having the right to file an appeal challenging these decisions.420As a result, rotations are reportedly being used as a means to intimidate prosecutors. These reforms also establish expressly that prosecutors may not give public statements concerning cases they are handling. On this point, despite the principle of secrecy of investigations that already exists in the Criminal Procedure Code, for some justice operators the Commission interviewed, this legislative change sends a message of intimidation in the work done by prosecutors, who now do not know whether or not they should publicly denounce human rights violations—including those directed against them—for fear of being penalized and losing their jobs. The IACHR recognizes that, in principle, these objectives aim to combat impunity. However, according to the information it has received, some of these reforms would seem to go beyond the desired objective, and while they may well constitute legitimate aims, they could also be applied arbitrarily.
Moreover, during the visit the Commission was informed that on April 17, 2013, an Intervening Commission was named because of existing complaints of alleged illegal enrichment by some prosecutors. As of December 2014, these complaints had not led to an assertion of responsibility. The State indicated that the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Prosecution of Officials and Civil Servants of the Public Prosecutor’s Office has tried 12 cases against prosecutorial officials who have been implicated in irregular activities.421 According to information received by some justice operators, the establishment of the Intervening Commission has resulted in prosecutors being placed and removed without due process and those with a specialization not being assigned to the appropriate Special Prosecutor’s Office. In addition, competitions are reportedly not being held for promotions, in contravention of the prosecutorial career service and the Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office. It is important to note that justice operators from the Public Prosecutor’s Office have also had to submit to trust tests.
The IACHR calls to mind that given the essential role the Public Prosecutor’s Office plays in moving criminal investigations forward, the independence, impartiality, and suitability of its officials must be guaranteed to ensure that their work is effective and to help eliminate the factors of impunity in cases involving human rights violations.422 International law has underscored how important it is that investigations and, on a broader level, any activities associated with the prosecution of crime, be independent and impartial so that crime victims are assured access to justice. The Inter-American Court has emphasized that investigations into human rights violations must be immediate and thorough, but they must be independent and impartial as well. The United Nations Special Rapporteur has stressed how important it is that prosecutors are able to conduct their own functions independently, autonomously, and impartially.423 The IACHR emphasizes that the lack of institutional autonomy can erode the credibility of the prosecutorial authority and undermine public confidence in the justice system.424
In this regard, the Commission cautions with great concern that the appointment of prosecutors by the Intervening Commission without clear and transparent parameters may mean that those selected are not suitable or do not have the necessary capacity to carry out their work independently. Moreover, the lack of due process for the removal of prosecutors by the Intervening Commission may not only violate the rights of the civil servants involved, but may also lead to a situation in which they are unable to defend themselves against that body’s decisions. This lack of job security jeopardizes prosecutors’ independence as a result of their fear of being removed from their positions in reprisal for their actions. In this regard, the IACHR urges the State to guarantee that prosecutors are selected and appointed based on applicable standards of international law425 and that they are not targeted for separation from their jobs without a process that offers them due process guarantees and the opportunity to have recourse for protecting their rights in the case of violations that could be committed against them in such procedures. Along these lines, the IACHR urges the State to revise the reforms to the Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office in accordance with applicable international human rights standards, in particular with respect to the independence, impartiality, and suitability of the work of prosecutors and with respect to the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection.
CHAPTER 4 NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS — STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS — STRENGTHS
AND WEAKNESSES
In this section, the IACHR analyzes the response of Honduras to violence through its various institutions. The information provided in this section is essential to enable the Commission to assess, from a human rights perspective, the progress and challenges faced by the State in its efforts to address the human rights situation in the country.
Positive aspects
The IACHR emphasizes the openness of the State of Honduras to international scrutiny. Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations and the Inter-American System have visited Honduras and have had great receptivity from the Honduran government.426Likewise, most notably, the IACHR welcomes the Government's decision to invite a greater presence in the country of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations.The Headquarters agreement was signed on May 4, 2015.427 In addition, the IACHR notes that the Secretariat of Human Rights, Justice, Interior, and Decentralization has demonstrated the capacity for effective coordination among institutions.
In this context, the IACHR welcomes the recent call by the Government of Honduras to a National Dialogue to address the discontent of Honduran society expressed in demonstrations across the country against various acts of corruption, among which was a millionaire embezzlement of the Honduran Institute of Social Security (IHSS) with the alleged participation of about 400 people. To this end, the President proposed the creation of a Honduran Integral System to Combat Corruption and Impunity.428 In public statements, the President of the Republic said that such a comprehensive system would have five components:429
First: A UNIT FOR THE SUPERVISION OF AND SUPPORT TO THE PUBLIC MINISTRY AGAINST CORRUPTION AND IMPUNITY, which would consist of prestigious Honduran and international prosecutors with proven expertise for technical and scientific support.
Second: A UNIT FOR THE SUPERVISION OF AND SUPPORT TO THE JUDICIARY COUNCIL AND THE MONITORING OF COURTS AGAINST CORRUPTION AND IMPUNITY, composed of Honduran jurists and international judges of recognized standing and proven expertise for technical and scientific support.
Third: A SPECIAL UNIT FOR THE SAFETY OF JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, THEIR FAMILIES AND FACILITIES, under the responsibility of the National Council of Defense and Security.
Fourth: AN OBSERVATORY OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, composed of academic organizations and civil society guided by a matrix of permanent evaluation of the justice system; and
Fifth: A SYSTEM OF BUSINESS INTEGRITY governed by the internationally accepted principles of transparency and integrity and with the appropriate legal framework for its implementation.
In this context, the President of Honduras invited the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations to facilitate the National Dialogue. The OAS accepted to participate in this initiative430 and designated a Chilean diplomat John Henry Biehl Del Río as its facilitator.431 Amb. Biehl visited the country on two occasions, first in August432 and then in September433 of 2015. In those visits, Amb. Biehl met with representatives of the national government, as well as with different social and political sectors of the country.434 As a result of those visits, he proposed the Honduran government a number of strategic lines of action in order to establish an integral mechanism of fight against corruption and impunity. Likewise, he suggested to accompany and provide advice on a reform of the Honduran justice system, in order to guarantee its complete independence, as well as its transparency and professional competence.435
After these first two visits, on September 28, 2015, the President of Honduras sent a letter in which he requested the OAS Secretary General, Luis Almagro Lemes, to present a proposal to fight corruption and impunity.436 In response, on September 28, 2015, the Secretary General officially announced the creation of the Mission to Support the Fight Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras (MACCIH), in order to “improve the quality of services provided by the justice system in Honduras, and for said purpose it will work jointly with State institutions and civil society.”437 MACCIH will be coordinated under the supervision of the Secretariat for Political Affairs. The following objectives were established:
Official objectives:
Contribute to compliance with the country’s international human rights commitments, in accordance with inter-American instruments.
Support, strengthen and contribute to the institutions of the State of Honduras responsible for preventing, investigating and sanctioning acts of corruption.
Improve the coordination between different institutions of the State that work on this issue.
Propose reforms to the Honduran system of justice.
Strengthen the mechanism of accountability from the civil society.
The IACHR also highlights the Cooperation Agreement for the Promotion of Transparency, Combating Corruption and Strengthening National Integrity Systems, signed between the Government of Honduras and Transparency International on 6 October 2014. The agreement’s main goal is to encourage and promote transparency, accountability and tackle corruption in all state institutions.438
The Commission also recognizes as a positive development the Public Policy and National Plan of Action on Human Rights that are being implemented.439 According to the State, through this policy, product of an extensive process of national and regional consultations, it seeks to integrate a human rights perspective in all actions of the State of Honduras.440 In this sense, on April 22, 2014 was signed by the Council of Ministers, the Inter-Institutional Agreement for the Implementation of the Public Policy and National Plan of Action on Human Rights (National Plan) in order to be applied on the agenda of each Secretariat of State. This way, according to the State, institutional foundations are laid to ensure continuity of the implementation process in future administrations placing the individual as the center of government activity.441 The State indicated that in compliance with the Convention, each institution appointed two liaison officers that were trained in the implementation of the action points contained in the National Plan in the Annual Operating Plans (POAs) of each institution, incorporating 260 action points in those POAs.
The State also indicated that the Special Response Group on Human Rights was formed as an inter-institutional space integrated by governmental and nongovernmental institutions. The Group aims to create a permanent link in these institutions so they can provide accurate, reliable and timely information that constitutes the basis for the preparation of country reports, in compliance with the human rights commitments made by the State of Honduras.442
Regarding the commitment to advance in the compliance with the recommendations of the Report of the Truth Commission, during the Universal Periodic Review in 2015, the State indicated that 69 of the 84 recommendations were met or in the process of compliance (37 fulfilled recommendations and 32 in process of fulfillment), which amounts to 82.6%.443 The State indicated that some institutions have given priority in their operational budgets and plans for 2015 to some action points in the Public Policy and National Plan of Action on Human Rights in conformity with those recommendations.444 The Commission welcomes the progress, and in order to fully comply with the recommendations of the Report of the Truth Commission, the IACHR recommends reinstalling a follow-up committee to implement the recommendations, as well as to develop jointly with civil society a roadmap regarding compliance of outstanding recommendations.
The IACHR also recognizes as a positive development the adoption of the Law on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, Journalists, Media Workers, and Justice Operators, unanimously approved by the National Congress on April 15, 2015 in the third and final debate.445 Later in this section, the IACHR analyzes the content of this Law, its achievements and challenges. The IACHR calls on the State to implement this law as soon as possible.
Regarding the situation of detainees, at the level of the regulatory framework, the Commission notes that the new General Regulation of the Law of the National Prison Institute was adopted, through the Executive Agreement No. 322- 2014, enacted by the Executive Power on December 2, 2014, and published in the Official Gazette on 12 March 2015. Also drafted and approved this year were the Special Rules on Prison Service Career and the Disciplinary Rules for Persons Deprived of Liberty, of the National Prison Institute (INP).446 Both are reportedly pending publication.447 In its response to the draft of this report, the State also noted that the National Prison Policy was also drafted with support from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). According to the State, this policy “includes a change from a system focused on punishment through deprivation of liberty to a new prison model geared toward the person’s reintegration, restorative justice, and prevention of violence. This approach also includes prison employees, who carry out their duties in very difficult conditions, and of course the human rights of victims and of all of society in general.”448 The State also reported that in January 2015 the INP Unit for the Protection of Human Rights began functioning as its own unit within the institution. One of this entity’s primary responsibilities, among others, is to conduct routine “in situ” inspections in prison facilities and pretrial detention centers throughout the country to verify the treatment and living conditions of persons deprived of liberty in the custody of the State. To that end it will make appropriate recommendations to the authorities of the INP National Board.449
The meals budget was also increased to 30 Lempiras (equivalent to US$1.37) per day per inmate for the 16,000 people deprived of liberty throughout the country in the last quarter of 2014, establishing a nationwide meals budget of HNL 158,775,000.00. (The equivalent of US$7,292,669.91).450 This represents an improvement over previous budgets. In fact, between 2009 and 2014, the budget set by the State for food was 13 Lempiras per day per inmate (equivalent to US$0.60), which the State itself said “resulted in the preparation of food lacking in the proteins and vitamins needed for a balanced diet.”451 In its response to the draft of the report, the State also indicated that in 2015 the total food budget was 172,260,000 Lempiras (equivalent to approximately US$7,656,000).452 In this regard, the Commission takes note of this development and urges the State to take appropriate measures increase the budget allocation.
In addition, the establishment of a prison school or academy was reported, which would aim at institutionalizing the training of agents that would gradually work in the prison system. As part of this initiative, cooperation agreements with the Honduran Red Cross and the Vocational Training Institute (INFOP) were signed. According to information submitted by the State, by December 2014 350 penitentiary officers had been trained. In this regard, the Commission evaluated as positive the fact that Honduras had taken the step to create an institution dedicated to the training of penitentiary staff; and hopes to receive in the future more detailed information from the State in aspects such as: its rules of operation, the curriculum taught, duration of the training that is provided, the process of selecting candidates, and the specific training on human rights and democracy. The IACHR also observes that the Congress of the Republic adopted the Mandatory Labor Law for Persons Deprived of Liberty.453
The Commission also notes that in the interest of providing public services in the best way possible and rationalize resources, the State decreed to optimize the Law to Optimize the Public Administration, Improve Citizen Services and Strengthen Transparency in Government, by which government ministries were reduced from 38 to 15.454 This change was one of the main topics that were widely criticized by civil society since the Secretariat of Justice and Human Rights, created in 2010,455 was converted from a Secretariat of State to a Under-Secretariat of the Secretariat on Human Rights, Justice, Interior and Decentralization.456 In this regard, the Commission takes note of the change of profile of the institution and of the concerns that have arisen regarding the multiplicity of areas that are currently under the Secretariat. However, the IACHR recognizes the openness and the efforts of the Under-Secretariat and hopes that it is provided with adequate human and financial resources to effectively fulfill its mandate.
