| The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001. Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date. This site is not updated so external links may no longer function. Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. |
TITLE: PANAMA HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES, 1993
DATE: JANUARY 31, 1994
AUTHOR: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
PANAMA
Panama's Constitution establishes a representative democracy
with three branches of government--executive and legislative
branches elected by direct secret vote for 5-year terms, and an
independent judiciary--plus an independent electoral tribunal.
The current Government, headed by President Guillermo Endara,
is a multiparty coalition elected in May 1989, but unable to
take office until December of that year.
Panama has no military forces. Law enforcement duties are the
responsibility of the Panamanian National Police (PNP) under
the Minister of Government and Justice. Criminal investigations
are performed by the Judicial Technical Police (PTJ) under the
Public Ministry, headed by the Attorney General, who is part of
the judicial branch. There continued to be instances of abuse
of detainees and prisoners by individual members of both forces.
Panama has a free enterprise, service-oriented, dollar-based
economy. The economy grew at least 6 percent in real terms in
1993, the fourth year of consecutive growth following the
downturn during the last years of the Noriega regime. Poverty
is pervasive, however, reflecting high unemployment and
underemployment in urban slums and in some rural areas.
During 1993, the Government strengthened some institutional
protections and continued to attempt to prosecute those
responsible for the human rights abuses during the previous 21
years of dictatorship. Manuel Noriega and two others were
convicted and sentenced for the 1985 murder of Dr. Hugo
Spadafora. Progress in key areas was slow, however, and
Panama's principal human rights problems included prolonged
preliminary and pretrial detention, an inefficient criminal
justice system, and an overcrowded, oppressive prison system.
Violence against women remained a serious problem.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including
Freedom from:
a. Political and Other Extrajudicial Killing
No cases of political killings at the hands of government
personnel were reported.
There were, however, incidents in which Panamanian police used
deadly force to stop fleeing suspects, which constitute
extrajudicial killings, despite a 1992 presidential decree
regulating the use of force by members of law enforcement
organizations. In October a PNP officer fired at a fleeing
suspect in Chitre, killing the man; the officer was arrested
and at year's end was in prison awaiting criminal proceedings.
In May indigenous demonstrators in Darien and Chiriqui
complained about rough handling and the indiscriminate use of
tear gas by police. Indigenous and other sources also claimed
the death of protester Saturnino Aguirre was caused by a blow
he received from police during the demonstration in Chiriqui;
the facts of the incident remain unclear. Indigenous leaders
filed charges against the PNP in the death of Aguirre. In
other instances, police used birdshot against demonstrators at
times when use of lesser force would have been more
appropriate. In a February 4 police raid in the Curundu area,
witnesses claimed police shot to death an 11-year-old boy
during a "social protection" operation (see Section 1.f.). The
PNP's Office of Professional Responsibility reported that the
11-year-old was killed during a shootout with criminal
suspects. No evidence was found to indicate whether the boy
was killed by the police or by others. No PNP officer was
charged in the incident.
During 1993 the Government brought to trial two prominent human
rights cases involving accusations of politically motivated
murder and torture during the Torrijos and Noriega military
dictatorships. In October a judge convicted Manuel Noriega (in
absentia) and two other defendants for the 1985 murder and
decapitation of Dr. Hugo Spadafora, a former Vice Minister of
Health and a critic of Noriega. All three were sentenced to
20-year jail terms. In September a jury found seven other
defendants not guilty, a decision which took nearly all
observers by surprise and provoked riots and demonstrations.
Four former military personnel went to trial in October for the
1971 disappearance and death of Catholic priest Hector Gallego,
an organizer of agrarian cooperatives. In November a jury
found three of them guilty of murder (the other defendant opted
for trial by judge and was awaiting the verdict at the end of
the year). The three found guilty were expected to be
sentenced to from 12 to 20 years' imprisonment.
Other Noriega-era defendants continued to be charged and tried
for offenses involving human rights abuses. Over 30 cases were
pending against ex-Panama Defense Forces (PDF) Major Felipe
Camargo, who had been convicted of human rights abuses in
1992. Ex-PDF Major Luis "Papo" Cordoba and ex-head of the
National Investigation Directorate Nivaldo Madrinan, both
charged but acquitted in the Spadafora trial, are to stand
trial also for the 1985 kidnaping and torture of Dr. Mauro
Zuniga, president of the National Civic Coordination (COCINA),
an organization opposed to the Noriega regime. A trial date
for the defendants in the Zuniga case had yet to be fixed at
year's end.
Two major cases, however, remained stalled in the court
system: the trial of 12 defendants charged with the kidnaping
and murder of American citizen Raymond Dragseth, killed during
the 1989 U.S. military action; and the trial of Manuel Noriega
and 5 others charged with the summary executions of 11 PDF
members after the October 1989 coup attempt against Noriega.
b. Disappearance
No known or alleged cases of politically motivated
disappearances occurred during 1993.
c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
The Constitution prohibits the death penalty as well as
measures which could damage the physical, mental, or moral
integrity of prisoners or detainees. In addition to the
constitutional prohibitions, Panama has ratified international
conventions on the prohibition of torture and has incorporated
them into its domestic law. However, there continued to be
scattered cases of brutality and use of excessive force by
police. The PNP and the PTJ each maintained offices of
professional responsibility to investigate claims of police
misconduct, including human rights abuses. Sanctions included
formal reprimand, disciplinary transfer, reduction in rank,
dismissal, and, in severe cases, prosecution. Through August
the PNP had investigated 130 cases; 6 officials were dismissed
for their actions, and 4 cases were forwarded for possible
prosecution in the courts. Through July the PTJ had
investigated 45 cases; 5 agents were dismissed, and 2 cases
were forwarded for possible prosecution in the courts. In
November the PNP's Office of Professional Responsibility
reported that the majority of complaints against police
involved excessive use of force and inappropriate use of arms.
The office also reported that 50 percent of public claims of
police abuse were justified.
As part of a 3-week orientation course, the PNP provided
20 hours of instruction to incoming recruits on laws and
procedures to protect the human rights and legal guarantees of
citizens. The PTJ had no such formal human rights instruction,
although the Panamanian Committee on Human Rights (CPDH)
organized periodic seminars on the need to respect human rights
for new and veteran PTJ personnel. The CPDH provided the same
assistance to the PNP.
Prison conditions throughout Panama remained deplorable and
health-threatening. The physical plant of most prisons was
dilapidated, medical care was inadequate, escape attempts were
frequent, and there were credible reports of corruption and
abuse of prisoners by guards. Overcrowding of prisons worsened
as arrests added to the prison population. According to
government figures, the total prison population as of July was
5,241, an increase of approximately 23 percent over July 1992.
Modelo prison, Panama's largest, housed over 1,700 prisoners in
a facility built for 300. Inmates reported that they slept in
physical contact with their cellmates on bare cement floors
that were perpetually wet from plumbing problems. There were
frequent press reports of mistreatment of prisoners by guards
and of inmate attacks on other inmates.
Addressing the inadequate prison facilities, the Government
inaugurated the 1,000-bed La Joya prison in August, although
the facility, which has less than 100 inmates, will not be
fully operational until March 1994. Similarly, the Government
announced the completion of a 150-bed wing in El Renacer prison
in September, but officials reported in December that the
facility was still not ready to admit prisoners.
There was a credible report from the CPDH in August that
officials at a Panama City juvenile detention center were using
excessive force to keep order at the facility. Inmates told of
beatings for breaking the rules, and the director admitted that
some juveniles were mistreated, blaming the problem on lack of
space. While there were no deaths or serious injuries reported
at the center in 1993, the Government took no concrete action
in response to the CPDH report. The CPDH reported in December
that the Supreme Court, which names the judge of Panama's
Juvenile Court, favored moving responsibility for it from the
Ministry of Government and Justice to the Judicial Branch, and
might propose legislation to that effect. The CDPH believes
such a move would help improve protection of children's rights.
Conditions on the Coiba Island Penal Colony continued to be
deplorable and primitive. At least five inmate gangs existed
on the island, and escape attempts were commonplace.
Allegations of mistreatment at the hands of guards, however,
notably diminished over prior years. Unlike the situation
during the past several years, no inmates died as the result of
gang violence on Coiba in 1993; one inmate died in an
accident. Prisoners who attempted to flee Coiba more than
three times were confined to antiquated cells with no sanitary
facilities. Coiba's isolation hindered communication between
inmates and their attorneys, often causing delays when its
inmates were not transported to court on time.
There was no known evidence in 1993 that female detainees or
prisoners were targeted for sexual assault or other abuse by
police or prison guards. Conditions at women's prisons were
better than those at men's prisons.
d. Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile
There were no known instances of arbitrary arrest, detention,
or exile. The Constitution stipulates that arrests must be
carried out with a warrant issued by the relevant authorities,
except when a person is apprehended during the commission of a
crime. The detainee is to be informed immediately of the
reasons for arrest or detention, and has a right to immediate
legal counsel, to be provided by the State for the indigent.
The Constitution provides for judicial review of the legality
of detention and mandates the immediate release of any person
found to have been detained or arrested illegally. A suspect
may not be detained legally for more than 24 hours without
being brought before a competent authority. A preliminary
investigation report by the police must be completed within
8 days, after which a prosecutor has a fixed period (which
varies according to the number of suspects) to complete the
investigative file for judicial review. The judge, in turn,
has an additional 15 days to render a decision as to whether a
trial is warranted. These time limits were often not met in
practice. The 24-hour time limit was often violated; detainees
were commonly held without charges for several days. Many
cases exceeded the time limits as a result of further
investigation, resubmissions, and, in some cases, additional
communication between the court and the Public Ministry.
Extended pretrial detention of those charged continued to be
one of Panama's most serious human rights problems. According
to government statistics, the proportion of pretrial detainees
in the prison population as of July was nearly 80 percent, up
slightly from the same period in 1992. According to public
defenders, the average period of pretrial custody for a
defendant was 14 to 18 months; pretrial detention in excess of
the maximum sentence for the alleged crime was not uncommon.
Further, should a detainee who spent a significant amount of
time incarcerated be found innocent, there are no legal means
to hold the Government accountable. The Government took no
meaningful action during the year to correct this situation.
e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
The nine Supreme Court magistrates are appointed to 10-year
terms by the executive branch and confirmed by the Legislative
Assembly. The magistrates appoint superior court judges, who
in turn appoint circuit court judges in their respective
jurisdictions.
At the local level, administrative judges similar to justices
of the peace are appointed by municipal mayors. There are two
types of local judges, "corregidores" and "night" (or "police")
judges. These judges exercise jurisdiction over minor civil
and criminal cases in which they may impose sentences of up to
1 year. This system has serious shortcomings. The actions of
corregidores and night judges are not regulated by the Code of
Criminal Procedure, and defendants lack adequate procedural
safeguards. These officials need not be (and normally are not)
attorneys, and they operate outside the control of the judicial
branch. Some allegedly engaged in corrupt practices. By law,
jail sentences meted out by these officials can be satisfied by
paying a fine; in practice, more affluent defendants pay fines
and poorer defendants go to jail. Shortcomings in this system
have a serious impact since the vast majority of minor criminal
cases are handled by corregidores and night judges.
The Constitution provides that persons charged with crimes have
the right to counsel and are presumed innocent until proven
guilty. The accused may, if not under pretrial detention, be
present with counsel during the investigative phase of the
proceeding. Pretrial detainees can be requested to be present
for the rendering of statements, amplifications, or
confrontation of witnesses. Trial proceedings are generally
conducted orally with the accused present. The trial phase is
a mixed system (written and oral), which includes the call to
trial, the presentation of evidence, and oral hearing. The
Constitution establishes trial by jury in some circumstances;
by law, jury trials are not an option in most cases.
The Government is constitutionally obliged to provide public
defenders for the indigent. In late 1992, the public
defenders' office reached its legislatively mandated strength
of 36 defenders and maintained that number throughout 1993.
Public defenders often were appointed after the investigative
phase of the case had passed, limiting the defense's
opportunity to present evidence. Public defenders' caseloads
were staggering, numbering hundreds of cases per attorney and
seriously undermining the quality of representation.
Personnel changes within the Attorney General's office in
1992-93 reduced efficiency and slowed processing of cases.
Attorney General Rogelio Cruz was suspended from office in
December 1992; several of his immediate collaborators also were
dismissed. The Public Ministry was slow to undertake needed
changes, including the implementation of a career law within
the Ministry and improvement of the work and accountability of
the first-level prosecutors.
Panama held no political prisoners in 1993. Various
pro-Noriega and ex-PDF groups claimed that approximately 50 to
54 prisoners held for alleged crimes including torture,
homicide, kidnaping, and other human rights violations during
the period of military dictatorship were "political" prisoners.
During the year, some of these prisoners were tried and
convicted. Many others were still awaiting trial, most since
early 1990. Although the judicial branch asserted that these
cases are being expedited, progress was slow. (Some of the
delays, however, stemmed from appeals and other legal motions
on behalf of the defendants.) Families of victims of
Noriega-era abuses vigorously protested bills to grant amnesty
to all the defendants. The Legislative Assembly passed no
amnesty bills in 1993.
f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or
Correspondence
The Constitution provides for the inviolability of the home and
communications. Personal documents are not to be examined,
communications monitored, or private residences entered and
searched except by written order. However, so-called social
protection operations in high-crime areas by the PTJ produced
credible complaints that PTJ agents failed to follow legal
requirements for arrest and search warrants and instead
conducted indiscriminate searches of entire apartment buildings
or housing complexes.
Despite the view of some that the Constitution prohibits all
wiretapping, the Government maintains that wiretapping with
judicial branch approval is legal. Media allegations in late
November that former Attorney General Rogelio Cruz had ordered
wiretaps in May 1991 prompted the CPDH to ask the Government to
investigate. These allegations also touched off calls for the
Supreme Court or the Legislative Assembly to define what
constitutes a legal wiretap in the absence of laws and
regulations adequately addressing the issue. The Government
took no further action before the end of the year. No evidence
was available to suggest that official wiretaps were used in
1993 for other than national security or criminal prosecution
reasons; the debate centered on what legal limits should be
acceptable.
Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:
a. Freedom of Speech and Press
Panamanians generally enjoyed freedom of speech and press as
provided for in the Constitution. Five national daily
newspapers (an additional daily opened in September 1993),
3 commercial television stations, 2 educational television
stations (1 run by the University of Panama, the other closely
associated with the Catholic Church), and over 95 radio
stations provided a broad choice of informational sources.
While many media outlets took identifiable editorial positions,
most carried a wide variety of political commentaries and other
perspectives, both local and foreign. Local and foreign
journalists worked and traveled freely throughout Panama, and
the population had access to foreign media.
Libel is a criminal offense subject to fines and up to 2 years
in prison. Opinions, comments, or criticism of government
officials acting in their official capacity are specifically
exempted from libel prosecution, but a section of the law
allows for the immediate discipline of journalists who show
"disrespect" for the office of certain government officials.
Several plans to annul or revise Noriega-era press restrictions
did not reach final debate in the National Assembly by year's
end.
In early March, the national censorship board initially banned
the U.S. film "The Panama Deception," which was highly critical
of the 1989 U.S. Operation Just Cause and the Endara
Government. Despite the ban, portions of the film's narrative
were published in newspapers. The ban, publicly criticized by
President Endara and by at least one member of the censorship
board, was rescinded on March 17.
Academic freedom was recognized and freely exercised in public
as well as private universities.
b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association
The Constitution provides the rights of peaceful assembly and
association, and the Government generally respects these
rights. No authorization is needed for outdoor meetings,
although prior notification for administrative purposes is
required. Panamanians have the right to form associations and
professional or civic groups without government interference;
they may form and organize political parties as they like,
though parties must meet membership and organizational
standards in order to gain official recognition and run in
national campaigns.
Freedom of assembly was widely exercised in 1993; citizens
frequently gathered and marched to protest government policies
and to demand changes.
c. Freedom of Religion
The Constitution provides for religious freedom. No
governmental restrictions impinge on the free exercise and
proselytization of religious beliefs, nor on any particular
religious groups. Although Roman Catholicism is predominant,
Panama has no state religion. Clerics are constitutionally
prohibited from holding public office except as related to
social assistance, education, or scientific research. Foreign
clergy are permitted to enter the country and enjoy the same
religious freedoms as Panamanian citizens.
d. Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign
Travel, Emigration, and Repatriation
The Constitution grants Panamanians the right to move freely
within the country and to emigrate and return, and these rights
are respected in practice. No known cases of forcible
repatriation of refugees or asylum seekers occurred in 1993.
A 9 p.m. curfew for minors in Panama province, imposed in
September 1992, remained in effect although it was enforced
mainly in high-crime areas.
Section 3 Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens
to Change Their Government
The Constitution provides for a representative democracy with
direct popular election of the president, two vice presidents,
legislators, and local representatives every 5 years.
Technical arrangements for and the supervision of elections are
the responsibility of the independent National Electoral
Tribunal. Suffrage is a right and duty for all citizens; there
is, however, no penalty for noncompliance. Voting is by secret
ballot. Panamanians enjoy the right to join any political
party, to propagate their views, and to vote for candidates of
their choice without government interference. These rights
were respected by the Government in 1993.
There are no legal bars to participation by women or people of
African, Asian, or indigenous descent, although their presence
in senior leadership positions in government or political
parties is not proportionate to their numbers within society.
However, numerous representatives of these groups, including
five women, are in the Legislative Assembly and they are
increasingly visible in mid-level political and governmental
positions. San Blas, populated mainly by indigenous Kuna
Indians, has two representatives in the Legislative Assembly.
During 1993 Panama began to prepare for the May 1994 general
elections. Sixteen parties, representing a wide spectrum of
political views, were legally recognized and are expected to
participate in the campaign. In May, under the auspices of the
Catholic Church, representatives of all political parties and
parties-in-formation signed an agreement to conduct fair and
peaceful election campaigns; the Church's Justice and Peace
Commission began investigating alleged violations of this
agreement. In June the Legislative Assembly passed electoral
code reforms aimed at ensuring fair elections.
Section 4 Governmental Attitude Regarding International and
Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations
of Human Rights
Several local human rights organizations, including both church
and secular groups, operated without restriction or government
interference, conducting investigations and disseminating their
findings. International human rights groups also operated
without government restriction.
Section 5 Discrimination Based on Race, Sex, Religion,
Disability, Language, or Social Status
The Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of race,
illegitimacy, social class, sex, religion, or political views.
Women
The Constitution notwithstanding, women generally do not enjoy
the same economic opportunities as men. Panamanian law does
not recognize property in common, and divorced or deserted
women are often left destitute. Although the Constitution
mandates equal pay for equal work, wages paid to women are
often lower than those for equivalent work performed by men and
increase at a slower rate. There were credible reports of
sexual harassment, threats of firing for pregnancy, and hiring
practices based on age and "sexual appeal." Although the
Center for the Development of the Woman found that Panama has a
relatively high rate of female enrollment in higher education,
many of these graduates are shunted into menial and
lower-paying jobs; only 5 percent of the managerial positions
in the country are occupied by women.
Domestic violence against women continued to be a serious
problem. The Center for the Development of the Woman reports
that the problem is widespread, but notes that few reliable
statistics exist on the subject, given the tendency of many
battered and abused women to disguise the true cause of their
injuries. Although clinic personnel are required by law to
report such abuse to the corresponding authorities for
investigation, it is seldom done (except in cases of injuries
caused by firearms). The Center further claims that police and
judicial authorities are reluctant to interfere because
domestic violence is widely seen as a "private" matter not
subject to legal remedy. Penalties for wife beating and sexual
abuse within marriage are also light and do not serve as a
deterrent. Private groups and government agencies operated
programs to assist victims of such abuse; the Center
inaugurated a municipal center in August 1992 devoted
exclusively to assisting abused women.
In response to pressure by women's organizations, the
Government created a Women's Department at the Ministry of
Labor in May to report on abuses in the workplace as well as
domestic violence. The office receives funding through the
Ministry of Labor's Social Welfare Branch; the Legislative
Assembly rejected a request in late 1993 for separate funding
in 1994. In early December, the Legislative Assembly's
Children's Commission sent a "Family Code" bill to the full
Assembly that, among other things, allows for property in
common in marriages. The measure did not pass but it is
expected to be taken up when the Assembly reconvenes in 1994.
Children
Panama is signatory to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the
Child; in 1991, the Convention was made part of Panama's
domestic law. The Legislative Assembly created a Permanent
Commission on Children's Rights in 1992 and the Commission
drafted several measures in 1993 to protect children, including
a bill to create a Ministry of the Family. None of the
Commission's measures, however, have yet been approved by the
Assembly. Although the Government was concerned about the
rights of children, budgetary constraints limit provision of
educational, health, and social services, particularly in rural
areas. There was no unified government response to curbing
domestic child abuse. The proposed Family Code bill (see
above) incorporated measures to guarantee the protection and
welfare of children and to assure the commitment of the
Government to safeguarding their legal rights.
In response to the mistreatment of juveniles (see Section 1),
the CPDH recommended creation of a government office to defend
children's legal rights, independent of any ministry and funded
by a separate budget.
Indigenous People
The Constitution seeks to protect the ethnic identity and
native languages of Panama's population of about 194,000
indigenous people, requiring the Government to provide
bilingual literacy programs in indigenous communities. The
Ministry of Government and Justice maintains a Directorate of
Indigenous Policy. Despite legal protection and formal
equality, indigenous people generally had relatively higher
levels of poverty, disease, malnutrition, and illiteracy than
the rest of the population.
The Government provides semiautonomous status to the San Blas
reserve, populated mainly by indigenous Kuna Indians. The
reserve is governed by tribal chiefs, who meet in general
congress twice a year. During 1993 Kunas objected to squatter
incursions in areas of Panama province they considered their
traditional lands and asked the Government to create another
Kuna reserve. Ngobe-Bugle Indians in the provinces of Bocas
del Toro, Veraguas, and Chiriqui also called on the Government
to create a reserve. Bills to create the Kuna and Ngobe-Bugle
reserves and an additional indigenous reserve in Darien
province were introduced in the Legislative Assembly in
mid-1993, but failed to gain approval.
The National Coordination of Indigenous Peoples of Panama--made
up of Kuna, Embera and Ngobe-Bugle leaders--sponsored a
national convention in November, the first since 1978, to
discuss strategies to compel the Government to create reserves
and foster development in Indian areas. Convention
participants produced a document calling for the creation of a
high-level government commission to implement greater
government investment in indigenous communities in the areas of
health and education. President Endara endorsed the document
in a meeting with indigenous leaders in December. The
Government incorporated into domestic law the Convention on the
Indigenous Peoples' Development Fund during the same month.
The fund provides economic support to the indigenous peoples of
Latin America and was among the agreements reached at the
second Ibero-American Summit in Madrid in 1992.
Indigenous groups claimed that the Government will only permit
them to take part in decisions affecting their lands, cultures,
traditions, and the allocation of natural resources when it is
coerced into doing so. The Governor of Panama province, for
example, was held hostage for a few hours in April by a group
of Kunas who argued this was the only means of drawing
attention to their demands.
National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities
Panama is a racially and ethnically mixed country. People of
African, Asian, and indigenous descent are politically active,
but--as noted in Section 3--underrepresented in senior
positions in the Government and the private sector. The law
does not discriminate against any social, religious, or
cultural group. However, naturalized citizens may not hold
certain categories of elective office, and the Constitution
reserves retail trade to Panamanian citizens. While anecdotal
evidence indicates that reserving retail trade to Panamanian
citizens originally was directed at Chinese immigrants,
government officials have stated that it serves as a barrier to
keep foreign retail chains from operating in Panama. The
measure is not enforced in practice; Chinese operate much of
the rural retail trade.
While there is no evidence to suggest any organized or
government-sponsored discrimination against the 100,000-strong
Chinese community, leaders of this community credibly claimed
that Chinese were treated as second-class citizens by society
at large. The rising Chinese immigration (both legal and
illegal) has also raised assimilation problems. Many newer
arrivals, seeking first to merge into a large and influential
urban Chinese community, do not attempt to learn Spanish or to
integrate into Panamanian society at large.
Religious Minorities
Panama's sizable evangelical Christian and Jewish communities,
together making up more than 10 percent of the population, take
part in nearly all aspects of national life. The same is true
of practitioners of other faiths, including Muslims, Hindus,
and Baha'is. No evidence suggested that religious minorities
were denied the right to practice their faiths or were
discriminated against based on their beliefs.
People with Disabilities
Panama has a number of private organizations to assist people
with disabilities, the largest of which is the National
Association of Disabled People, founded in 1985. The Ministry
of Labor's Department for Disabled Workers, created in 1980, is
responsible for placing qualified disabled workers with
employers. In 1993 the Department was in charge of
implementing a June executive order which provided employers
with monetary incentives for hiring people with disabilities,
as well as an International Labor Organization (ILO) project to
provide financial assistance to disabled people who wish to
start small businesses. Although some public buildings and
retail stores have access ramps for disabled people, no law or
regulation compels the use of ramps or other easy-access
features in public or private buildings.
Section 6 Worker Rights
a. The Right of Association
Panamanian private sector workers have the right to form and
join unions of their choice, subject to registration by the
Government. According to Ministry of Labor statistics,
approximately 24 percent of the private sector workforce is
organized; it is estimated that 11 percent of the total
employed labor force is organized. There are 284 active
unions, grouped under 7 confederations and 48 federations
representing approximately 85,000 members. From January to
November, 11 new unions registered with the Government. Some
unions formerly affiliated with federations and confederations
have chosen to function independently in recent years.
Organized labor, which received various benefits from and was
largely coopted by the military regime, is no longer identified
with nor controlled by the Government or political parties.
Union organizations at every level may and do affiliate with
international bodies.
Most government workers are not permitted to organize unions or
bargain collectively, but have the right to form representative
associations. Workers in certain state-owned companies, such
as public utilities, are permitted to organize unions, and
these are among the strongest in Panama. Workers from the
National Telecommunications Institute marched against
government proposals to privatize the company; electrical
company workers demonstrated repeatedly to oppose the dismissal
of workers fired during a recent reorganization. Workers in
other state-owned companies do not have the right to form
unions but, like those in the rest of the public sector, have
the right to form employee associations. FENASEP (the umbrella
organization for the public employee associations) elected its
executive committee in May and was in the process of
reorganizing and reactivating its member associations. Of the
47 member associations under FENASEP, 24 were active and
approximately 20 were in the process of reorganizing.
Workers, except government workers and those employed by the
U.S. Forces and the Panama Canal Commission, have the right to
strike. Employees of state-owned enterprises that were once
private, such as the electricity and telecommunications
companies, have the right to strike when certain criteria are
met. For example, a notice of intention to strike must be
served at least 8 calendar days in advance and strikers must
continue working in reduced shifts to prevent public services
from being completely paralyzed.
While Law 25 of 1990, enacted following the police uprising in
December of that year, restricted the right of association by
permitting the firing of public sector employees participating
in actions contrary to "democracy and the Constitution," this
law expired on December 31, 1991. The Supreme Court reviewed
the cases of public sector workers fired pursuant to this law
and at the end of 1992 ruled that 25 workers should be
reinstated. In the remaining 145 cases, the Court determined
that the dismissal of the workers was legal. Regretting that
the parties concerned did not reach agreement, the ILO
Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) reiterated in
November its conclusion that the mass dismissal of trade union
leaders and workers in the public sector was a serious
violation of the right to organize.
The ILO's Committee of Experts (COE) commented on positive
developments with respect to administrative aspects of trade
union organizations and the right to strike in 1993. The COE
noted that the Government reduced the number of union documents
it reviews and limited the effects of the provision of the Code
obligating unions to allow the Government to inspect records at
least every 6 months. In reference to restrictions on the
right to strike, the COE noted the passage of Law 2 of 1993
which restored freedom of association and collective bargaining
rights to workers in the private sector. In particular, the
COE noted favorably that Law 2 of 1993 repealed the provision
of Law 13 of 1990 that allowed for compulsory arbitration when
the continuation of a strike could result in serious economic
problems for a business.
The COE continued to criticize the exclusion of public servants
from the right to organize and bargain collectively, noting
that though the Government submitted an administrative career
bill to the Legislative Assembly, the bill did not contain
provisions establishing the right of public servants to
organize. The COE asked the Government to take measures to
address this issue as well as the excessively high number of
members required to establish a union, the requirement that
75 percent of union members be Panamanian nationals, and the
automatic removal from office of trade union officials
dismissed from their jobs. The COE reported the Government's
reply that it would consider in a tripartite forum possible
reform of Labor Code provisions dealing with numerical and
nationality requirements for union formation, as well as the
automatic removal from office of a trade union officer in the
event of his dismissal from employment. The COE also noted
that Panama's Constitution and the Labor Code require that the
executive board of a trade union be composed exclusively of
Panamanians. The ILO judged that government legislation should
be made more flexible to permit organizations to choose leaders
without hindrance and should allow foreign workers to hold
trade union office.
Despite the prohibition on striking by public sector employees,
there were numerous strikes in both the private and public
sectors in 1993. Since the unions did not follow the terms of
the Labor Code, the Government considered the strikes illegal.
From March 8 to April 1, sugar cane cutters of the Estrella
Azul sugar company struck to demand an increase in the minimum
wage. (The strike was unsuccessful and 270 employees were
fired.) Following a strike by construction workers at the La
Fortuna dam, Skanska agreed to pay workers a portion of wages
accrued during the strike as well as previously owed overtime
and extra wages. In June banana workers of the Chiriqui Land
Company called a strike to oppose the Legislative Assembly's
consideration of a bill which, among other things, would have
enabled the company to purchase 5,000 hectares of land from the
Government. (Ultimately the contract was rejected by the
Assembly.) From May 31 to June 4, bus and taxi drivers called
a strike to protest a transport law that established safety
requirements and passenger rights.
Panamanian teachers called a work stoppage on August 18 to
demand a $100 monthly salary increase and improved working
conditions. After a 64-day stoppage, the teachers accepted
minimal gains that included neither a salary increase nor pay
for the time they failed to work. The teachers' unions still
hope the Supreme Court will overrule President Endara's veto of
a legislative compromise that would have given the teachers
more of their original demands. After a brief September strike
for payment of retroactive salary increases, National Institute
of Telecommunications (INTEL) workers secured an agreement from
the Government to resolve the issue. The increases went to all
INTEL workers who had received a performance evaluation of
"excellent." The Comptroller General had refused to pay the
increase since 97 percent of the workers had been given this
exemplary rating.
b. The Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively
The law affords most workers the right to organize and bargain
collectively, and the right is widely exercised. Aside from
the representative associations discussed above, most public
employees are excluded from the right to organize, bargain
collectively, and strike. Workers in the Colon Free Zone and
the banking sector are effectively denied this right through
the de facto exclusion of unions in these sectors. Unions have
been excluded when their leaders were fired from their jobs;
under the Labor Code, this automatically removes them from
their positions as trade union officials. In 1990 and 1991,
three officials of the National Bank Workers' Union were fired
from Banco Cafetero and Chase Manhattan Bank for union
organizing activities. The Government contended that because
the union was not legally recognized--even though it had
applied for legal certification in 1972--its leaders were not
eligible for reinstatement. The Government, however, brokered
generous severance payments for the cashiered union officials
to ameliorate the dispute. Nevertheless, the result is that
the workers have been left effectively without an organizing
force. During 1993, there were no attempts to organize in the
banking sector or the Colon Free Zone.
On January 13, President Endara signed Law 2 of 1993 restoring
full freedom of association and collective bargaining rights to
workers in the private sector and repealing sections of Law 13
of 1990. Following more than 18 months of domestic and
international pressure, the Government amended or repealed
those portions of Law 16 (export processing zones--EPZ's) and
Law 13 (collective bargaining) that the ILO viewed as
restricting internationally recognized workers' rights. Law 2
calls for the resumption of collective bargaining for
agreements expiring on or after January 1993, based on the
agreement's original expiration date or the expiration of an
extension under Law 13. Law 2 also repealed the controversial
clause of Law 13 that provided for government-mandated
arbitration. Over 85 private sector collective bargaining
agreements were successfully concluded in 1993.
The amended export processing zone law (Law 25 of 1992)
reimposed the obligation of firms operating in EPZ's to enter
into collective bargaining agreements with workers. There are
three licensed EPZ's in Panama: Isla Margarita, Ojo de Agua,
and Telepuerto. Isla Margarita is the only EPZ in operation;
it has one apparel assembly facility. No organizational
attempts have been made in this facility.
The Labor Code prohibits antiunion discrimination by employers.
Disputes or complaints may be brought to a conciliation board
in the Ministry of Labor for resolution. The Labor Code
provides a general mechanism for arbitration once conciliation
procedures have been terminated. Under law, employers found
guilty of antiunion discrimination are required to rehire
workers fired for union activity. In practice, however, this
does not always occur.
c. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor
The Labor Code prohibits forced or compulsory labor, and
neither practice was reported during 1993.
d. Minimum Age for Employment of Children
The Labor Code prohibits the employment of all children under
14 years of age as well as those under 15 if the child has not
completed primary school; children under 16 cannot work
overtime; those under 18 cannot perform nightwork. Children
between the ages of 12 and 15 may perform farm or domestic
labor as long as the work is light and does not interfere with
the child's schooling. Enforcement of these provisions is
triggered by a complaint to the Ministry of Labor, which may
order the termination of illegal employment. Child labor
provisions were generally enforced, although less so in the
interior of the country because of insufficient staff to
monitor abuses.
e. Acceptable Conditions of Work
The Labor Code establishes a standard legal workweek of 48
hours and provides for at least one 24-hour rest period. It
also establishes minimum wage rates for specific regions and
for most categories of labor. Most Panamanian workers employed
in urban areas earn the minimum wage or above. Nevertheless,
Panama has a substantial informal sector, some of whose workers
earn below the minimum wage. A tripartite commission
(government, labor, and business) studied the minimum wage in
1992. On January 1, 1993, the minimum wage was increased 20.5
percent (to $0.94 per hour from $0.78 per hour) in the
districts of Panama, Colon, and San Miguelito and for workers
in financial services. The real purchasing power of the
minimum wage increased by 9.3 percent, the largest real
increase since 1972. The Ministry of Labor is charged with
enforcing the minimum wage, although it lacks sufficient human
and financial resources to execute its legal mandate fully.
For example, labor leaders in the Canal area allege that
contractors operating there pay hourly wages below the $2.90
required under Decree 52 of 1979 and Decree 3 of 1980 which
cover employees of companies involved in the maintenance,
protection, and use of the Canal.
The Government sets and enforces occupational health and safety
standards. An occupational health section in the Social
Security System (CSS) is responsible for conducting periodic
inspections of especially hazardous employment sites, such as
those in in the construction industry, as well as inspecting
health and safety standards in response to union or worker
requests. Workers who file requests for health and safety
inspections are legally protected from dismissal. They also
have the right to remove themselves from situations that
present an immediate health or safety hazard without
jeopardizing their employment. They are generally not allowed
to do so if the threat is not immediate, but may request a
health and safety inspection to determine the extent and nature
of the hazard.
The Ministry of Labor is responsible for enforcing health and
safety violations and generally does so. The standards are
fairly encompassing and generally emphasize safety over
long-term health hazards, according to organized labor
sources. An example is the dust hazard in the cement and
milling industries; health concerns in these industries did not
appear to be effectively addressed. Panama does not have a
large industrial sector. The construction industry is the
largest employer, and available figures in 1993 did not
indicate an unusually high rate of accidents.
[end of document]
Return
to 1993 Human Rights Practices report home page.
Return to DOSFAN
home page.
This is an official U.S. Government source
for information on the WWW. Inclusion of non-U.S. Government links
does not imply endorsement of contents.