Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All

Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

Forty-first session

Summary record of the 619th meeting*

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva, on Monday, 8 December 2025, at 10 a.m.

Chair:Ms. Diallo

Contents

Consideration of reports submitted by States Parties under article 73 of the Convention (continued)

Second periodic report of Honduras

The meeting was called to order at 10 a.m.

Consideration of reports submitted by States Parties under article 73 of the Convention (continued)

Second periodic report of Honduras (CMW/C/HND/2; CMW/C/HND/Q/2; CMW/C/HND/RQ/2)

At the invitation of the Chair, the delegation of Honduras joined the meeting.

A representative of Honduras, introducing her country’s second periodic report (CMW/C/HND/2), said that the election, in 2021, of the first female President of Honduras, Iris Xiomara Castro Sarmiento, had marked the country’s return to the path of democracy following the coup d’état of 2009. The replies to the list of issues (CMW/C/HND/RQ/2) reflected the Government’s commitment to protecting and guaranteeing the human rights of migrants and to continuing to rebuild the democratic State of Honduras. The need to rethink the country’s migration policies had been made clear by the emergence of the migrant caravans, which had been fuelled by extreme poverty, violence, extortion and a lack of opportunities and had later been exacerbated by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the disasters caused by Hurricanes Eta and Iota in 2020. The caravans had driven the transformation of Honduras from a country of origin into, simultaneously, a country of origin, transit, destination and return.

In 2022, the National Congress had adopted Decree No. 42-2022 in order to tackle the humanitarian crisis at the country’s borders by granting, for foreign nationals who had entered in an irregular manner, an exemption from the payment of the administrative penalty established in the Migration and Aliens Act, thereby enabling them to transit freely and safely through the country. The Migration Governance Council had been established in 2024 to coordinate migration policy, uphold the human rights of people on the move and draw up a national agenda for addressing migration issues. The Council paid special attention to protecting vulnerable groups, such as women, young people, LGBTIQ+ individuals and older persons, and supporting the reunification of unaccompanied migrant children with their families.

The tightening of migration policies in the United States of America had led to the mass deportation of Honduran migrants. In order to address the resulting migration emergency, the President had ordered, in February 2025, the implementation of the National Emergency Strategy for the Protection of Honduran Migrants, information on which was set out in paragraph 59 of the replies to the list of issues. The Government had also signed a cooperation agreement with the United States under which non-Honduran nationals who had been expelled from that country could choose to apply for asylum in Honduras through a comprehensive and fair process that was adapted to their protection needs. Between 2023 and 2025, around 800 Hondurans per year had participated in a programme that enabled them to work legally in Spain, thereby guaranteeing the protection of their rights. It was expected that, in 2026, the number of annual participants in the programme would be increased by 500.

Details of the “Sister, Brother, Come Home” programme, which had been established within the framework of the National Emergency Strategy for the Protection of Honduran Migrants to facilitate the reintegration of Honduran returnees, were contained in paragraph 116 of the replies to the list of issues. More than 34,000 returnees had received the vouchers provided under the programme. In 2025, the municipal offices for the reintegration and support of returnees in the municipalities of Yoro, Catacamas and San Pedro Sula had referred individuals in almost 3,000 cases to a range of services, including psychological, educational and entrepreneurship support services. Returnees were cared for in Centres for Migrant Returnees, which were run by multidisciplinary and inter-institutional teams and funded through the national budget. One such centre had been established specifically to support children and families. In 2025, the Centres had supported almost 40,000 returnees, providing them with food services, medical and psychological care, transportation, hygiene kits, accommodation and referrals to reintegration projects. Efforts to address the structural causes of irregular migration had resulted in a 45% decrease, between 2022 and 2025, in the number of persons returning to the country. That decrease had been reported by the National Institute of Statistics, which had also recorded a 60% reduction in poverty.

As part of its efforts to identify missing Honduran migrants, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation had referred 60 cases for DNA sampling. The implementation of its protocol on the search for missing Honduran migrants had resulted in the notification of 211 deaths and the organization of 14 mental health and psychological assistance group sessions for relatives of missing Hondurans. There had been an increase in the budget allocated to the Solidarity Fund for Honduran Migrants, 15% of the resources of which went to the Centres for Migrant Returnees in order to ensure their sustainability. The Fund’s resources had also been used to fully cover the repatriation of 327 Hondurans who had died abroad and to set up working groups within the Honduran consular network to follow up on matters concerning children. The groups had been provided with the human and logistical resources they needed to visit shelters and facilitate the prompt reunification of families. Information on the measures taken at the national and regional levels to protect the rights of migrant children was set out in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the replies to the list of issues. According to the records of the Support System for Returned Migrants, the number of child returnees had fallen from around 14,000 in 2022 to approximately 2,400 in 2025, representing a decrease of 83%.

The National Institute of Migration had drafted a new Migration and Aliens Act, which was consistent with the Convention and other international treaties and incorporated a gender-sensitive and non-discriminatory approach. Steps had been taken to strengthen the support centres for migrants with irregular status, which served foreign nationals transiting through Honduras. Between 2022 and 2025, the centres had provided comprehensive assistance, including medical and legal services, psychological support, food, clothing and hygiene and biosafety kits, on more than 300,000 occasions. A budget of 200 million lempiras (L) had been earmarked for the construction of five centres at transit points across the country.

The Government’s efforts to improve individual and collective security had included the implementation of an anti-crime plan and a project to strengthen institutions through a gender-sensitive and human rights-based approach. Such efforts had led to a 24% reduction in homicides between 2022 and 2025, meaning that the homicide rate had reached its lowest point in 20 years. Female victims of violence could receive support through a dedicated hotline or a free and confidential chatbot service. The “911” application had been created to provide legal, psychological and medical advice to Honduran migrants, returnees and migrants in transit and support their reintegration into society.

The assumption of office by President Castro Sarmiento had signified a shift towards a migration policy that was focused on human rights, the protection of migrants and inter‑institutional coordination. The Government was firmly committed to the promotion and protection of the human rights of all migrants and determined to continue its work to that end.

Mr. Charef (Country Rapporteur) said that he would be grateful for up-to-date statistics on internal displacement within the State Party, in particular in view of the devastating hurricanes that had struck in 2020. The delegation might provide information on the content of the Central American Free Mobility Agreement, which had been signed in 2006 by the State Party, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua, and explain what measures were provided for in the bilateral and multilateral agreements signed between the State Party and other States in order to protect the rights of migrant workers in countries of transit and destination, especially in the areas of social security, employment, remittances, repatriation, deportation and family reunification. He would be interested to hear, too, about the State Party’s cooperation with States that were not Parties to the Convention.

It would be helpful if the delegation could comment on the accuracy of reports that the overwhelming majority of gang-related crimes continued to go unpunished. He would appreciate reliable, up-to-date data on the number of Hondurans, disaggregated by age, sex, gender, educational level and geographical location, who had left the State Party and on the trends observed over time. He wished to know what steps the State Party had taken to disseminate the Convention and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, including among Hondurans overseas and those who were considering migrating. He wondered what was being done to foster cooperation among States in Central and South America in implementing the Global Compact and to encourage hesitant States to ratify the Convention.

Mr. Ceriani Cernadas (Country Rapporteur) said that he would appreciate an update on the development of the new Migration and Aliens Act and, in the event that it had already been finalized, an explanation of its content. It would be useful for the delegation to comment on the extent to which the adoption of Ministerial Decision No. 374 of 2025, which concerned residency requirements for foreign nationals, represented a change in regulations and whether steps had been taken to repeal article 114 of the implementing regulations of the Migration and Aliens Act, which established a very broad category of persons who were prohibited from entering the State Party. He wondered whether the Act on the Protection of Honduran Migrants and Members of Their Families had been amended to reflect recent developments, in particular the migration emergency caused by policy changes in the United States.

Against the backdrop of that emergency, he wished to know what had been done to strengthen the National Council for the Protection of Honduran Migrants and the Directorate General for the Protection of Honduran Migrants. It would be interesting to hear whether steps had been taken to bolster the State Party’s consular networks in Mexico and the United States, including by opening new consulates, increasing budgets or establishing links with migrant organizations. The delegation might provide information on the legal, psychological and other forms of support provided by the State Party’s consular offices to Hondurans who had been arrested in public places in the United States and were facing deportation from that country and explain whether such individuals were given travel documents and any necessary pre-deportation information. He would be grateful for disaggregated data on the number of Honduran migrants and their relatives who were currently in detention in the United States or had been deported and the number of families who had been separated as a result of that process.

It would be interesting to hear what action had been taken in response to the decision made by the Department of Homeland Security in July 2025 to terminate the State Party’s designation as a country whose nationals would be granted temporary protected status in the United States. He was curious to know whether the State Party planned to join forces with other Latin American States to bring legal action before the courts in the United States in order to protect the rights of their nationals in that country. More information on the cooperation agreement signed with the United States in March 2025 would be welcome, including what types of cases it covered, whether children were excluded from its scope and what steps had been taken to ensure respect for the rights and procedural guarantees set out in the Convention during the transfer of asylum-seekers from the United States to the State Party. He wished to know whether asylum-seekers who arrived in the State Party under that agreement were held in detention centres or open facilities, which authorities were responsible for dealing with them and whether the agreement contained protections against indirect refoulement.

He wondered what the State Party and its consular offices did to support Honduran workers whose labour rights had been violated in the United States in filing complaints against their employers and ensure that they were not detained or deported as a result. In view of reports that remittances received from Honduran nationals abroad had accounted for around 25% of the State Party’s gross domestic product (GDP) in recent years, he would like to know what was being done to ensure that the significant contribution of Honduran workers abroad was reflected in the level of protection they received, in particular after they had returned or been deported. The delegation might comment on whether mechanisms had been put in place under the “Sister, Brother, Come Home” programme to ensure that Honduran migrant workers who had made substantial social security contributions while in the United States would be able to continue enjoying their social security rights once they had returned to the State Party.

It would be interesting to hear whether any mechanisms had been established to support the reunification of families who had been separated following the detention or deportation from the United States of one or more of their members. He would appreciate information on any measures taken to support the integration of children who had been born to Honduran parents but had citizenship of the United States, had never lived in the State Party and did not fully master Spanish. An explanation of the procedures in place to facilitate the reintegration of unaccompanied children who had returned from the United States or Mexico would be welcome, as would a description of the role played by the child protection authorities and the steps taken to determine what course of action would be in the children’s best interests. He wished to learn what migration-related measures had been implemented following the adoption of the 2024–2033 National Policy for Early Childhood, Childhood and Adolescence and what progress had been made. An update on the implementation of the National Protocol for the Comprehensive Care and Protection of Children in Migration Situations would also be appreciated.

He would like to know what had been done to protect the rights of female Honduran migrants in Spain, in particular those engaged in domestic care work, who sometimes found themselves facing abuse or exploitation. He wondered whether steps had been taken to ensure that the medical cooperation agreement signed by the State Party and Cuba in 2024 was consistent with the Convention and the relevant instruments of the International Labour Organization, with a view to preventing violations of the labour rights of the Cuban medical personnel who would work in the State Party under that agreement. It would be helpful if the delegation could explain what was being done to protect migrants who transited through the State Party and what role the Office of the National Commissioner for Human Rights and the Comprehensive System for the Protection of the Rights of Children and Adolescents in Honduras played in those efforts.

Mr. Corzo Sosa (Country Rapporteur) said that he would like to know whether the new Migration and Aliens Act was harmonized with the Convention and wished to reiterate the Committee’s readiness to provide guidance in that area.

He would be grateful for information on the number of investigations conducted into cases of enforced disappearance involving migrant workers and their families, the outcomes of those investigations and the extent to which the victims’ family members were able to participate in the investigation process, in particular in cases involving individuals who had disappeared in other States. The delegation might explain what national or international technical and scientific standards were applied during work to identify missing Honduran migrants, whether the identification and repatriation of bodies or remains were carried out in a dignified manner and at no cost for the families concerned and whether, in the event that remains were cremated, steps were taken to identify them beforehand. He wondered whether the State Party had a national policy on disappearance that covered aspects such as prevention, investigation and the punishment of perpetrators, ensured the conduct of effective searches and the participation of the families concerned and guaranteed access to justice through a transnational humanitarian and human rights-based approach. It would be helpful to know whether the State Party recognized the right to be searched for as a human right, what challenges remained in giving effect to that right and what could be done to tackle them.

It would be helpful if the delegation could provide information on any action taken in follow-up to the recommendations made by the Committee in paragraph 41 (a) and (e) of its previous concluding observations (CMW/C/HND/CO/1), which concerned the development of a consular protection policy aimed at protecting migrant workers and their families and a standardized tool for the collection of quantitative and qualitative migration-related data by Honduran consulates. More detailed information on the scope and effectiveness of the protocols described in paragraph 15 of the report, which covered topics such as the search for missing migrants, care for detained migrants, specialized protection for children and adolescents and return, repatriation and reintegration, would be welcome. With respect to the information in paragraph 99 of the State Party’s report that 883 of the 1,011 children identified through a consular protection plan for separated families in the context of the zero‑tolerance policy of the United States had been reunited with their families, he wished to know what had happened to the remaining 128 children.

He was curious to know how the Honduran Recommendations Monitoring System was used to monitor the follow-up given to recommendations made to the State Party and what purposes that system had served during the State Party’s preparation of its report. He would be grateful for clarification of the comments contained in paragraph 35 of the report, which appeared to suggest that the State Party did not need to make the declarations under articles 76 and 77 of the Convention since complaints of human rights violations could already be submitted to a number of other bodies, and wished to urge the State Party to reconsider its position on that matter given that those bodies did not address migration issues as comprehensively as the Committee.

It would be helpful to learn whether the State Party had taken concrete steps to ensure that families who received remittances could use them productively and whether recipients received advice on how to invest the money. An update on the regulation and implementation of the Solidarity Fund for Honduran Migrants would be appreciated.

Mr. Kariyawasam said that he would like to know what government agencies were responsible for implementing the “Sister, Brother, Come Home” programme, to what extent the provisions of the Convention had been taken into account in its design, whether it was reviewed annually to ensure its effectiveness amid the evolving circumstances, whether the public had had a say in its development and management and whether migrant workers could obtain access to the programme before they returned to the country. Detailed answers to his questions would be appreciated, since, if successful, the programme could serve as a model for other countries of origin to follow. It would be useful to learn whether government lawyers were assigned to Honduran consular offices abroad to assist migrants in ensuring the portability of their social security benefits.

Ms. Gahar said that she wished to know whether the State Party had used statistical data to inform its development of the measures aimed at protecting child migrants. Statistics on unaccompanied children and children who had been separated from their parents would be welcome, as would examples of specific cases in which the implementation of the Government’s programmes and protocols had helped children successfully reintegrate into society and reunite with their families. It would be helpful to learn what steps the State Party took to regularize the status of migrant children who were in an irregular situation. She was curious to know whether the Binational Protocol for the Protection and Care of Unaccompanied Migrant Children and Adolescents provided for mechanisms to assist migrant children, whether indicators had been established to measure its effectiveness and whether the State Party could provide statistics on the number of children who had benefited from the support set out in the instrument. With regard to the data provided in paragraph 45 of the replies to the list of issues concerning the number of returned migrant children between 2022 and January 2025, she would welcome an explanation of the reasons behind the significant difference in the figures for 2022 and 2024. The delegation might describe, with reference to joint general comments No. 3 and No. 4 of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families/No. 22 and No. 23 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2017), what legislative and policy measures had been introduced to protect the rights of migrant children with disabilities. It would be interesting to hear, too, how the Comprehensive Care Programme for Workers’ Children promoted gender equality and guaranteed the right to education of the children enrolled therein, what accountability and oversight mechanisms had been put in place to ensure respect for those children’s rights and what had been done to realize the right of the children and their parents to participate in the evaluation and development of the Programme.

The Chair said that the Committee welcomed the information provided in the report on the development of the State Party’s legislative and institutional framework, particularly the formulation of a comprehensive and sustainable migration policy. However, she wished to know why the report did not include more information on the situation of domestic workers, including migrant domestic workers. As most domestic workers in Honduras were women, and they faced difficulties such as lack of access to social security, low wages and long working hours, she wondered what efforts had been made to protect them.

According to the replies to the list of issues, the purpose of the Simplified National Registry of Employers was to create a database of all employers, with the exception of natural persons who hired people to perform household chores. She would therefore appreciate clarification of whether employers of domestic workers were included in the database and, if not, whether the State Party had another means of identifying domestic workers and their employers. She wished to know whether the State Party’s labour laws recognized domestic work as a category of work in its own right and imposed on employers the duty to respect the rights and safeguards arising from an employment relationship. In the light of the information that the labour inspectorate must seek the employer’s consent in order to conduct an inspection, on account of the constitutional principle of inviolability of the home, she would be interested to know how the State Party monitored the working conditions of domestic workers, including migrant domestic workers.

During its recent dialogue with the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Honduran delegation had stated that the National Congress was considering the adoption of bills on domestic workers and assistance for children in street situations. She would be interested to know the status of those bills. Furthermore, following the adoption of a technical opinion on the ILO Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189), she wished to know when and by what procedure the State Party would ratify the instrument.

It had been reported that unaccompanied foreign children faced major obstacles to the enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights, such as the denial of access to adequate housing, healthcare and education and the lack of education and vocational training tailored to their needs. She would therefore appreciate information on any general measures that had been taken to facilitate migrants’ access to social services and to uphold the economic, social and cultural rights of unaccompanied children.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child had noted that the State Party’s education budget was shrinking, despite an increase in the number of school-age children. She would therefore like to know what the impact of the budget cuts had been in terms of access to education for unaccompanied children and children of migrant workers. She would also like to hear about the effectiveness of the assistance mechanisms established under the Binational Protocol for the Protection and Care of Unaccompanied Migrant Children concluded by Guatemala and Honduras. Additional information on procedures for family reunification – especially that of minors who had become separated from their families during migration – would be welcome. Lastly, she asked what measures had been taken to address the situation of migrants and other persons displaced by climate change.

The meeting was suspended at 11.30 a.m. and resumed at 11.55 a.m.

A representative of Honduras said that proposed amendments to the Migration and Aliens Act, which had been introduced in 2024 with the participation of international organizations and civil society, were currently being reviewed by the National Congress. The amendments related to international protection, temporary protection in emergency situations, extended deadlines for temporary residence procedures, the abolishment of the administrative penalty for irregular entry and a complementary protection mechanism.

The Agreement for Cooperation in the Examination of Cooperation Requests, concluded by Honduras and the United States, allowed for the transfer to Honduras of persons in need of protection whose asylum applications had been rejected by the United States. About 10 persons, mainly nationals of Spanish-speaking Latin American countries, were transferred each month. On arrival, they were guaranteed access to services and were interviewed to determine their vulnerability and identify their profiles and needs. If they wished, they could apply for refugee status in Honduras, in which case they would be referred to local cooperation bodies and provided with means of subsistence and access to work. Individuals who wished to return to their countries of origin were provided with the means to do so. While awaiting return, they were placed in centres for migrants with irregular status, where they were not detained but could come and go at will.

Centres for migrants with irregular status also catered for migrants in transit through the national territory. There were five such centres in Honduras, which provided comprehensive services, including healthcare and legal advice, and counted on the participation of government bodies and international organizations. Migrants in transit were issued with a permit that gave them five days in which to regularize their status by requesting a one-year residence permit for humanitarian reasons, submitting a formal asylum application or leaving the country.

A representative of Honduras said that Honduran workers who were subjected to labour violations in the United States could approach the consular network and the Office for the Protection of Honduran Migrants to obtain free legal assistance, which was provided regardless of their migration status. Honduras and the United States had established a bilateral framework for dealing with labour discrimination. For migrant workers in the United States under the Temporary Work Abroad Programme, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security had established a monitoring mechanism and a partnership with Justice in Motion to provide legal assistance and representation, addressing cases directly with employers and, where necessary, the labour authorities of the host country.

Honduran workers deported from the United States could enrol in the Honduran social security system in the same way as other Honduran workers; indeed, employers of returning migrants were required to enrol them. Contributions paid in the United States were not transferred to the Honduran Social Security Institute; benefits had to be claimed directly from the United States system. The Act on the Protection of Honduran Migrants and Members of Their Families guaranteed access to social benefits, health, education, employment and housing services during the reintegration process. Honduras was in the process of acceding to the Ibero-American Multilateral Agreement on Social Security, which would strengthen the protection of Honduran migrant workers abroad.

Articles 149–160 of the Labour Code regulated domestic work, defined domestic workers and recognized their rights. The Code included provisions on probationary periods, rest, holiday, notice and grounds for termination of contract and recognized domestic workers as salaried workers. The Simplified National Registry of Employers applied to all natural and legal persons who employed workers and did not exclude domestic work. Employers of Honduran or migrant domestic workers were required to register in the Honduran Labour Cases System, which formed part of the labour inspection system; however, there had been some difficulty in registering households as employers of domestic workers. Since March 2024, the Ministry of Social Development had been working with institutions, domestic workers’ organizations and international cooperation agencies to develop a policy on domestic and unpaid work.

The ratification of ILO Convention No. 189 was a tripartite process, based on social dialogue, led by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. A draft executive decree and technical reports had been agreed with employers and domestic workers’ organizations and submitted to the Office of the President prior to debate in the National Congress.

The Honduran Recommendations Monitoring System was an information technology tool that the Government used to organize, classify, monitor and follow up on international and inter-American human rights recommendations. It had been developed in cooperation with, inter alia, the Government of Paraguay and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and was coordinated by the Ministry of Human Rights. The System strengthened the State’s institutional response and supported national reporting on the human rights situation in the country.

A representative of Honduras said that the Government had introduced the Comprehensive System for the Protection of the Rights of Children and Adolescents in Honduras in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The System, which was governed by the National Council on Children and Adolescents, had been fundamental for broadening the protection framework for returned migrant children. Participants in the System, including the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the National Institute of Migration and the Inter-Agency Commission to Combat Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Trafficking in Persons, worked with civil society organizations to provide services and assistance to foreign children in transit through Honduras, especially in hard-to-reach areas. All 298 municipalities of Honduras worked to protect children and uphold their best interests in accordance with the Government’s policy. Thanks to the Comprehensive System, children and adolescents were provided with immediate assistance and their food, housing, health and protection needs were met. The Government also worked to ensure family reunification in countries of destination and origin in accordance with the principles of family unity and non-refoulement, ensuring that children and adolescents were not returned to a place where they might be in danger. The Binational Protocol for the Protection and Care of Unaccompanied Migrant Children and Adolescents had been a significant achievement, placing emphasis on the assistance of migrant children in transit and their inclusion, reintegration, family reunification and safe return.

A representative of Honduras said that all Honduran consulates had an official responsible for migrant protection. During the previous four years, Honduras had opened five new consulates in the United States (Pittsburgh, Tampa, Aurora, Phoenix and Kansas City), two in Mexico (Monterrey and Guadalajara) and two in Spain (Girona and Bilbao). During the same period, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had established mobile consulates covering 16 cities in the United States. Mobile consulates provided the same services that were available in permanent ones, notably the issuance of passports and national identity documents. Some 900,000 Honduran citizens abroad had obtained a passport or national identity document through the consular network, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs continued to support the national inter-institutional response in Mexico and the United States.

A representative of Honduras said that it was true that the labour inspectorate required the employer’s consent in order to enter and inspect a workplace where a domestic worker was employed. However, any unjustified refusal or other obstruction of labour inspection was subject to administrative sanctions under the Act. During the previous five years, 17 administrative complaints by domestic workers had been processed and resolved, while the Public Prosecution Service had received four criminal complaints of ill-treatment, harassment and sexual abuse committed against domestic workers. The low number of complaints reflected a problem of underreporting due to the difficulty of inspecting private homes and the fear of retaliation.

Article 29 of the Act on the Protection of Honduran Migrants and Members of Their Families had recently been amended to increase the budget for activities under the Act from $5 million to $10 million. Those additional resources would be crucial for meeting the multiple needs of Honduran migrants, including returnees. The National Council for the Protection of Honduran Migrants had begun a technical and legal review of all articles of the Act with a view to modernizing and streamlining processes.

At the same time, the new Diaspora Unit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was looking into issues such as how remittances reached families and entered the country’s financial system. Financial institutions such as the National Bank for Agricultural Development had participated in the mobile consulates initiative, thus contributing to the financial inclusion of Honduran nationals living in the United States. The establishment of the Diaspora Unit also responded to the need for migrants to participate in public policymaking, including the design of policies and projects for their protection and well‑being. Planned activities to improve the quality of life of Honduran migrants included projects in the areas of education, access to housing loans and legal assistance.

The Government of the United States had designated temporary protected status for Honduras after the passage of Hurricane Mitch in 1998, recognizing the country’s vulnerability to environmental crises. In 2025, the designation had been terminated on the grounds that conditions in Honduras had improved. In the light of that decision, the Government of Honduras had signed an agreement with a law firm to provide free assistance to Hondurans abroad through its consular network and it supported lawsuits brought by persons affected by the loss of temporary protected status.

The Migration Governance Council had discussed measures for the social and economic reintegration of persons who had resided abroad for an extended period. In November 2025, the Government had introduced a customs procedure that allowed returning nationals to import household goods on a tax-free basis. The aim of the “Sister, Brother, Come Home” programme, overseen by the Ministry of Social Development, was to ensure the dignified return of Honduran nationals. Such persons were received by Centres for Migrant Returnees, which provided a range of services, including the issuance of up-to-date national identity documents, medical and psychological consultations and the provision of social benefits. They received a $100 solidarity grant, food vouchers and transport tickets that allowed them to reach their place of origin. The Government also provided opportunities for employment, training and entrepreneurship, including through a partnership with the National Institute for Vocational Training.

The Government had developed a comprehensive protocol on the search for missing migrants, drawing on cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team, the International Organization for Migration and the German Agency for International Cooperation. That partnership had contributed technical assistance, resources and training for personnel in search and identification protocols, DNA sampling and mental health. Measures were taken to support families of missing persons, who were allowed to participate in searches. The Act on the National DNA Database System had provided a vital framework for the development of protocols and services and the establishment of partnerships.

Mr. Charef said that, following the tightening of immigration policies by the United States, the Committee was satisfied to note the State Party’s adoption of the National Emergency Strategy for the Protection of Honduran Migrants. However, according to multiple sources, the Government was failing to meet burgeoning needs in a context of drastic cuts in humanitarian assistance, while civil society organizations were struggling to bridge the gap. He would therefore appreciate additional information on measures to improve the situation of returnees. He would be interested to know which authority had been tasked with leading the National Emergency Strategy and which stakeholders were involved in its implementation. It would be useful to know whether any studies or evaluations of the Strategy had been conducted and what outcomes for Honduran migrants had been identified.

In the light of the information provided on the consular network, he would be interested to receive information on the type and number of services provided by Honduran embassies and consulates to protect the rights of migrants who had been subjected to violence, abuse, exploitation, detention or threats of deportation. He wondered how many Hondurans were currently in detention in the United States and how many had voluntarily returned to Honduras. He would appreciate additional details regarding the State Party’s procedures for receiving migrants expelled from the United States and accompanying them to their places of origin. How did the authorities identify and care for vulnerable persons, such as women victims of gender violence or sexual exploitation?

He would be grateful for information on measures to protect the social security rights of persons who had been expelled from the United States after working there for many years, including on any bilateral agreements that guaranteed the portability of those rights. He would like to know whether Honduras conducted awareness-raising and information campaigns and provided social and psychological support for deported nationals. What measures, such as promoting job creation or income-generating activities, had been taken to help returnees to become self-sufficient, and how many people had benefited from social and economic reintegration programmes?

The Committee noted that the State Party had strengthened security measures to combat gangs, including declaring a state of emergency and having the military take over the running of prisons. It would be interested to know whether those security measures had been accompanied by social measures and, if so, what their outcomes had been. The Committee would also like to know what was being done to combat racism and xenophobia.

Mr. Ceriani Cernadas said that, for Honduran nationals who had paid into the United States social security system before being deported, access to their social security rights would be crucial for their quality of life. He therefore wished to know whether they could claim the benefits to which they were entitled, such as pensions, in Honduras, or would have to travel to the Embassy of the United States in Costa Rica in order to do so. He wondered how the State Party supported them in advancing their claims.

He would also be grateful for information on the State Party’s cooperation framework with Canada, including in respect of temporary foreign worker programmes. He was curious to know more about the situation of Honduran workers in Canada and the work undertaken by the consular authorities to protect them.

It would be interesting to hear about the participation of Honduran migrants abroad in the recent general election. He would especially like to know what measures had been taken to ensure that Honduran migrants could exercise their right to vote, how the voting had been organized and what the turnout had been among migrants.

He would welcome further information on the support provided to Honduran nationals in lawsuits brought in the United States following the loss of temporary protected status. In particular, he wished to know whether the State acted as a party to the proceedings, whether it provided assistance to individuals before their cases came before the courts, and in how many such cases the State had intervened. More details concerning the scope of the partnership established with Justice in Motion would be welcome.

The Committee would appreciate information on measures for the protection of Honduran migrant children in Mexico and the United States, including those in situations of child labour, abuse or exploitation. For example, it would be useful to know whether Honduran consulates had been able to confirm reports of child labour in the agriculture sector in California, of labour exploitation of children in Chiapas, Mexico, and of sexual exploitation of Honduran women and girls, also in Mexico.

Lastly, he would appreciate information on measures to promote the birth registration of children born to Honduran migrant workers in Mexico and the United States, who would ordinarily acquire the citizenship of those countries. How did Honduras ensure the birth registration of such children, thus protecting their right to Honduran nationality? Did children born on Honduran territory to migrant families in transit automatically acquire Honduran citizenship?

Mr. Corzo Sosa said that, according to the State Party’s report, 164 of 298 municipal committees tasked with upholding the rights of children and adolescents had been established. He would be interested to know whether any steps were being taken to establish such committees in the remaining 134 municipalities.

The Committee would be grateful for disaggregated data on the provision of healthcare for returned migrants with disabilities and would be interested to hear of efforts to alleviate the suffering of such migrants, particularly persons with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities. The delegation might comment on reports that some returned migrants with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities, who needed community-based care, had been referred to the Mario Mendoza Psychiatric Hospital or the Santa Rosita Psychiatric Hospital, where they were at risk of human rights violations. The delegation might also address reports that Honduran migrants were confined in the Federico Mora National Mental Health Hospital in Guatemala.

The introduction of measures for returning migrants, such as the provision of the solidarity grant and transport tickets, was welcome. However, in the absence of more substantial social reintegration measures, it was likely that many returnees would again be tempted to migrate, resulting in circular migration. He therefore wished to know what steps were being taken to promote social integration by helping returning migrants into work, education or training.

Paragraph 27 of the report indicated that there were almost 700,000 Hondurans residing abroad, while acknowledging a data gap between the population and housing census of 2013 and the administrative records of destination countries. He wondered whether the delegation could provide any more recent statistics in that regard.

Noting that the Office of the National Commissioner for Human Rights had been accredited with A status in 2019 and that its budget had increased in recent years, he said he was curious to know when the Office was due for reaccreditation by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. He would be interested to receive information on the outcomes of the 56 complaints relating to abuses of the rights of Honduran migrants abroad that the Office of the National Commissioner for Human Rights had received between 2017 and 2021. Lastly, he would like to know whether the National Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment conducted visits to migration detention centres and police stations and, if so, what visits it had undertaken and whether it had detected any human rights violations.

Mr. Babacar said that he wished to know whether the Government intended to ratify the ILO Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) and the ILO Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129). He would be grateful for information on the number and geographical extent of the labour inspections conducted in the State Party’s territory and the resources available to the labour inspectorate.

He would also like to know whether the Government planned to ratify the ILO Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), the ILO Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187), the ILO Migration for Employment Convention (Revised), 1949 (No. 97) and the ILO Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention, 1975 (No. 143). As Honduras had ratified the ILO Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), he wondered whether it might also ratify the Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190) and whether the Government had a strategy for protecting women in the workplace.

The meeting rose at 1 p.m.