There were no reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings.

There were no reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The law prohibits such practices, and there were no reports that government officials employed them.

Prison and Detention Center Conditions

There were no significant reports regarding prison or detention center conditions that raised human rights concerns.

Physical Conditions: There were no major concerns cited in prisons and detention centers regarding physical conditions. Adults and juveniles were held separately, although minors were held with their parents in immigration detention centers as an alternative to splitting families.

Civil society groups challenged federal and some provinces’ use of solitary confinement in the court system. The cases limited solitary confinement of the mentally ill and recommended caps on the length of time an inmate can be placed in solitary confinement. In May 2017 the federal correctional investigator or ombudsman for federally sentenced offenders reported an estimated 400 federal inmates were in solitary confinement on any given day and reported the average length of stay for men at 22 days (down from 35 days in previous years), and for women an average of 10 days. The average time inmates spent in solitary confinement also fell in part due to assignment of high-needs inmates to treatment programs and specialized units for mental care, drug addiction, or other factors as an alternative to segregation.

In July an Ottawa man filed suit against the Ontario government for a mental health breakdown he alleged occurred after spending 18 months in solitary confinement while on remand awaiting trial.

On January 5, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) indicted two correctional officers for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing the in-custody death of Matthew Hines, who died from asphyxiation in 2015 after being repeatedly pepper sprayed. On April 25, both defendants pleaded not guilty, and their cases were pending trial as of October 1.

Administration: Independent authorities investigated credible allegations of inhumane behavior and documented the results of such investigations in a publicly accessible manner.

Independent Monitoring: The government permitted visits by independent nongovernmental human rights observers.

The law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention and provides for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of his or her arrest or detention in court; the government generally observed these requirements.

ROLE OF THE POLICE AND SECURITY APPARATUS

National, provincial, and municipal police forces maintain internal security. The armed forces are responsible for external security but in exceptional cases may exercise some domestic security responsibility at the formal request of civilian provincial authorities. The RCMP reports to the Department of Public Safety, and the armed forces report to the Department of National Defense. Provincial and municipal police report to their respective provincial authorities. The Canada Border Services Agency reports to the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and is responsible for enforcing immigration law. Civilian authorities maintained effective control over the RCMP and provincial and municipal police forces, and the government has effective mechanisms to investigate and punish abuse. There were no reports of impunity involving the security forces during the year.

ARREST PROCEDURES AND TREATMENT OF DETAINEES

Authorities generally relied upon warrants in the apprehension of persons. A judge can issue a warrant if satisfied a criminal offense might have been committed. A person arrested for a criminal offense has the right to a prompt, independent judicial determination of the legality of the detention. Authorities respected this right. Authorities provided detainees with timely information on the reason for the arrest and provided prompt access to a lawyer of the detainee’s choice, or, if the detainee was indigent, a lawyer provided by the state without restriction. Bail generally was available. Authorities may hold persons under preventive detention for up to seven days, subject to periodic judicial review. Suspects were not detained incommunicado or held under house arrest.

The law provides for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence and impartiality.

TRIAL PROCEDURES

The law provides for the right to a fair and public trial, and the independent judiciary generally enforced this right. Trials are held before a judge alone or, for more serious cases, before a judge and jury. Defendants have the right to a timely trial, to be present at their trial, and to consult with an attorney of their choice in a timely manner. The government provides an attorney at public expense if needed when defendants face serious criminal charges, and defendants may confront or question witnesses against them and present witnesses and evidence on their behalf. Defendants and their attorneys generally had adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense. Defendants also enjoy a presumption of innocence, the right to be informed promptly and in detail of the charges against them (with free interpretation as necessary), the right not to be compelled to testify or confess guilt, and the right of appeal.

POLITICAL PRISONERS AND DETAINEES

There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.

CIVIL JUDICIAL PROCEDURES AND REMEDIES

There is an independent and impartial judiciary in civil matters and access to a domestic court to bring a suit seeking damages for, or cessation of, a human rights violation. Remedies can be monetary, declaratory, or injunctive. Federal or provincial human rights commissions may also hear alleged human rights violations. Individuals may also bring human rights complaints to the United Nations or Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The law prohibits such actions, and there were no reports that the government failed to respect these prohibitions.

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

The constitution and law provide for freedom of expression, including for the press, and the government generally respected this right. An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combined to promote freedom of expression, including for the press.

Freedom of Expression: According to Supreme Court rulings, the government may limit speech to counter discrimination, foster social harmony, or promote gender equality. The court ruled that the benefits of limiting hate speech and promoting equality are sufficient to outweigh the freedom of speech clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the country’s constitutional bill of rights.

The criminal code prohibits public incitement and willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group in any medium. Inciting hatred (in certain cases) or genocide is a criminal offense, but the Supreme Court sets a high threshold for such cases, specifying that these acts must be proven to be willful and public. Provincial-level film censorship, broadcast licensing procedures, broadcasters’ voluntary codes curbing graphic violence, and laws against hate literature and pornography impose some restrictions on the media.

On August 9, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the appeal of a Quebec superior court ruling in March that ordered a Radio Canada journalist to reveal confidential sources the journalist used involving a former deputy premier of the province. On November 30, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior rulings that the government may compel media organizations to produce evidence in relation to criminal investigations. In its decision the court declined to address whether the press enjoys distinct and independent constitutional protection, noting the matter was not considered by the lower courts. The court also noted that the 2017 Journalistic Sources Protection Act did not apply, because the case arose before the law took effect.

The trial of a Mississauga, Ontario, man charged in 2017 with one count of willful promotion of hatred for posting abusive videos and materials against Muslims and other groups on his website and other social media platforms remained pending as of October 1.

In December 2017 a Quebec government commission presented its findings after investigating reports that Quebec law enforcement agencies surveilled eight journalists between 2008 and 2016 as part of internal police investigations into sources of leaked information in a political corruption case. Although the police had a warrant from a Quebec court for each case, testimony suggested police might have based warrant applications on unsubstantiated allegations. The commission found no conclusive proof of political interference with police investigations but recommended legislation to establish a legal firewall between police and politicians and to protect journalistic sources, as well as improve police training to ensure freedom of the press.

INTERNET FREEDOM

The government did not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content, and there were no credible reports that the government monitored private online communications without appropriate legal authority.

Approximately 99 percent of households could access broadband services. According to International Telecommunication Union data, 93 percent of the population used the internet in 2017.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND CULTURAL EVENTS

There were no government restrictions on academic freedom or cultural events.

b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

The law provides for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and the government generally respected these rights.

c. Freedom of Religion

See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.

d. Freedom of Movement, Internally Displaced Persons, Protection of Refugees, and Stateless Persons

The constitution and law provide for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these rights.

The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to internally displaced persons, refugees, returning refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons, or other persons of concern.

PROTECTION OF REFUGEES

Access to Asylum: The law provides for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government has established a system for providing protection to refugees.

Durable Solutions: The government accepted refugees for resettlement from third countries and facilitated local integration (including naturalization), particularly of refugees in protracted situations. The government assisted the safe, voluntary return of refugees to their homes.

Temporary Protection: The government also provided temporary protection (in the form of temporary residence permits) to persons who may not qualify as refugees.

The law provides citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage.

Elections and Political Participation

Recent Elections: In 2015, following a free and fair election, the Liberal Party won a majority of seats in the federal parliament and formed a national government.

Participation of Women and Minorities: No laws limit the participation of women or members of minorities in the political process, and they did participate. The government of New Brunswick provided financial incentives to political parties to field female candidates in provincial elections.

a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining

Federal and some provincial laws, including related regulations and statutory instruments, provide for the right of workers in both the public and the private sectors to form and join independent unions, conduct legal strikes, and bargain collectively. Workers in the public sector who provide essential services, including police and armed forces, do not have the right to strike but have mechanisms to provide for due process and to protect workers’ rights. Workers in essential services had recourse to binding arbitration if labor negotiations failed. The law prohibits antiunion discrimination and provides for reinstatement of workers fired for union activity. There were no reports of antiunion discrimination or other forms of employer interference in union functions.

Federal labor law applies in federally regulated sectors, which include industries of extra provincial or international character, transportation and transportation infrastructure that crosses provincial and international borders, marine shipping, port and ferry services, air transportation and airports, pipelines, telecommunications, banks, grain elevators, uranium mining and processing, works designated by the federal parliament affecting two or more provinces, protection of fisheries as a natural resource, many First Nation activities, and most crown corporations. These industries employed approximately 10 percent of workers.

The law grants the government exclusive authority to designate which federal employees provide an essential service and do not have the right to strike. The law also makes it illegal for an entire bargaining unit to strike if the government deems 80 percent or more of the employees of the unit essential.

Provincial and territorial governments regulate and are responsible for enforcing their own labor laws in all occupations and workplaces that are not federally regulated, leaving categories of workers excluded from statutory protection of freedom of association in several provinces. Some provinces restrict the right to strike. For example, agricultural workers in Alberta and Ontario do not have the right to organize or bargain collectively under provincial law.

The government generally respected freedom of association and the right of collective bargaining. The government effectively enforced applicable laws and regulations, including with effective remedies and penalties such as corrective workplace practices and criminal prosecution for noncompliance and willful violations. Penalties were sufficient to deter violations. Administrative and judicial procedures were not subject to lengthy delays and appeals.

b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor

The law prohibits all forms of forced or compulsory labor, and the government effectively enforced the law. The law prescribes penalties for violations of up to 14 years’ imprisonment, or life imprisonment in the case of certain aggravating factors, such as kidnapping or sexual assault. Such penalties were sufficiently stringent. The government investigated and prosecuted cases of forced labor and domestic servitude.

The federal government held employers of foreign workers accountable by verifying employers’ ability to pay wages and provide accommodation and, through periodic inspections and mandatory compliance reviews, ensuring that employers provided the same wages, living conditions, and occupation specified in the employers’ original job offer. The government can deny noncompliant employers the permits required to recruit foreign workers for two years and impose fines of up to C$100,000 ($76,800) per violation of the program. Some provincial governments imposed licensing and registration requirements on recruiters or employers of foreign workers and prohibited the charging of recruitment fees to workers.

There were reports employers subjected noncitizen or foreign-born men and women to forced labor in the agricultural sector, food processing, cleaning services, hospitality, construction industries, and in domestic service. NGOs reported bonded labor, particularly in the construction industry, and domestic servitude constituted the majority of cases of forced labor and that some victims had participated in the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.

Also see the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/.

c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment

The law prohibits the worst forms of child labor. There is no federal minimum age for employment. In federally regulated sectors, children younger than 17 may work only when they are not required to attend school under provincial legislation, provided the work does not fall under excluded categories (such as work underground in a mine, on a vessel, or in the vicinity of explosives), and the work does not endanger health and safety. Children may not work in any federally regulated sector between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. The provinces and territories have primary responsibility for regulation of child labor, and minimum age restrictions vary by province. Enforcement occurs through a range of laws covering employment standards, occupational health and safety, education laws, and in regulations for vocational training, child welfare, and licensing of establishments for the sale of alcohol. Most provinces restrict the number of hours of work to two or three hours on a school day and eight hours on a nonschool day, and prohibit children ages 12 to 16 from working without parental consent, after 11 p.m., or in any hazardous employment.

Authorities effectively enforced child labor laws and policies, and federal and provincial labor ministries carried out child labor inspections either proactively or in response to formal complaints. There were reports that limited resources hampered inspection and enforcement efforts. Penalties were pecuniary and varied according to the gravity of the offense.

There were reports child labor occurred, particularly in the agricultural sector. There were also reports children, principally teenage females, were subjected to sex trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation (see section 6, Children).

d. Discrimination with Respect to Employment and Occupation

The law and regulations prohibit discrimination with respect to employment or occupation on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin or citizenship, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity, age, language, HIV-positive status, or other communicable diseases. Some provinces, including Quebec, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the Northwest Territories, prohibit employment discrimination on the grounds of social origin, “social condition,” or political opinion. The government enforced the law effectively, and penalties were sufficient to deter violations. Federal law requires, on a complaint basis, equal pay for equal work for four designated groups in federally regulated industries enforced through the Canadian Human Rights Commission: women, persons with disabilities, indigenous persons, and visible minorities. Ontario and Quebec have pay equity laws that cover both the public and private sectors, and other provinces require pay equity only in the public sector.

Authorities encouraged individuals to resolve employment-related discrimination complaints through internal workplace dispute resolution processes as a first recourse, but federal and provincial human rights commissions investigated and mediated complaints and enforced the law and regulations. Some critics complained the process was complex and failed to issue rulings in a timely manner. Foreign migrant workers have the same labor rights as citizens and permanent residents, although NGOs alleged discrimination occurred against migrant workers and that some refugee claimants faced language and other nonlegal barriers that made it difficult to enter the workforce.

e. Acceptable Conditions of Work

There is no national minimum wage and no official poverty income level. As of October provincial and territorial minimum wage rates ranged from C$14.00 to C$11.06 ($10.75 to $8.50) per hour. Some provinces exempt agricultural, hospitality, and other specific categories of workers from minimum wage rates. For example, Ontario has a minimum wage lower than the respective minimum for adult workers for persons younger than 18 who work less than 28 hours per week when school is in session. The government effectively enforced wage rates and penalties were sufficient to deter violations.

Standard work hours vary by province, but in each the limit is 40 or 48 hours per week, with at least 24 hours of rest. The law requires payment of a premium for work above the standard workweek. There is no specific prohibition on excessive compulsory overtime, which is regulated by means of the required rest periods in the labor code that differ by industry. Some categories of workers have specific employment rights that differ from the standard, including commercial fishermen, oil-field workers, loggers, home caregivers, professionals, managers, and some sales staff.

Federal law provides safety and health standards for employees under federal jurisdiction. Provincial and territorial legislation provides for all other employees, including foreign and migrant workers. Standards were current and appropriate for the industries they covered. Responsibility for identifying unsafe situations resides with authorities, employers, and supervisors, not the worker. Federal, provincial, and territorial laws protect the right of workers with “reasonable cause” to refuse dangerous work and to remove themselves from hazardous work conditions, and authorities effectively enforced this right. The government also promoted safe working practices and provided training, education, and resources through the Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety, a federal agency composed of representatives of government, employers, and labor.

Minimum wage, hours of work, and occupational health and safety standards were effectively enforced. Federal and provincial labor departments monitored and effectively enforced labor standards by conducting inspections through scheduled and unscheduled visits, in direct response to reported complaints, and at random. Penalties were pecuniary and varied according to the gravity of the offense. Under the federal labor code, maximum penalties for criminal offenses, including criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm, or willful breach of labor standards in which the person in breach knew that serious injury or death was likely to occur, could include imprisonment. Enforcement measures include a graduated response, with a preference for resolution via voluntary compliance, negotiation, and education; prosecution and fines serve as a last resort. Some trade unions continued to note that limited resources hampered the government’s inspection and enforcement efforts.

NGOs reported migrants, new immigrants, young workers, and the unskilled were vulnerable to violations of the law on minimum wage, overtime pay, unpaid wages, and excessive hours of work. NGOs also alleged that restrictions on the types of labor complaints accepted for investigation and delays in processing cases discouraged the filing of complaints.

According to the Association of Workers Compensation Boards of Canada, during 2016, the most recent year for which data were available, there were 904 workplace fatalities.

There were numerous reports that government security forces committed arbitrary and unlawful killings. The Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF), the country’s police force, was responsible for the majority of the cases. As of October 23, the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM), the body parliament established in 2010 to investigate abuses by agents of state, had received 122 reports of security force-related fatalities, compared with 168 in 2017. These were cases where police or joint military-police activity led to the death of a civilian.

The government did not take sufficient action to address this problem. Of the cases of security force-related fatalities reported to INDECOM, fewer than 5 percent led to official charges, and fewer than 2 percent led to a conviction. Even egregious charges against members of the security forces could take years to process. In 2007 police constable Mark Russell shot and killed an unarmed teenage boy in Kingston. The court concluded Russell planted a police-issued rifle on the victim’s person as he lay wounded in the street to corroborate a false report. Defense counsel used various procedural maneuvers to delay the case. In September the court sentenced Russell to 24 years in prison.

There were no reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The constitution prohibits such practices, although there is no legal definition of torture. Allegations of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment towards individuals in police custody continued. The majority of reports described officials using physical force, intimidation, access to water, and extreme exposure to heat or cold to coerce a change in testimony. INDECOM investigated reports of alleged abuse committed by police and prison officials. Representatives from the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Jamaicans for Justice claimed abuse was likely underreported by victims, who feared reprisal or did not believe authorities would act on their complaint.

In one case an elderly woman, Desrine Morris, died while in police custody on or about March 1. The JCF arrested Morris for an unspecified bench warrant. Less than six hours later police reported she had hanged herself. There were no follow-up police reports, and the autopsy did not confirm a cause of death. Friends and family members were skeptical of this being a suicide. Media reports suggested that excessive punitive force may have led to the death.

Prison and Detention Center Conditions

Conditions in prisons and detention facilities were harsh and life threatening due to gross overcrowding, physical abuse, limited food, inadequate sanitary conditions and medical care, and poor administration. Reports existed of corrections officers using their authority to take bribes and control access to prisoners.

Physical Conditions: Some of the most egregious reports of human rights abuses took place in “lock-ups” (facilities to hold pretrial detainees). For example, when the government declared a state of emergency in the parish of St. James in January, it identified a lock-up in Montego Bay to facilitate the influx of detained suspects. The Ministry of Health reported major problems, including the lack of functioning bathroom facilities, lighting, and handwashing stations; poor ventilation; and inadequate drainage. Ministry inspectors noted illnesses caused by cockroaches, rats, mosquitoes, and flies. Detainees consumed nutritionally poor meals. There was no refrigeration on site for food storage. Detainees had less than one hour per day out of the cell to use shower facilities and get food. In some cases guards reportedly denied access to bathrooms and water in order to coerce and punish inmates.

Family members frequently had to wait in long lines to visit detainees held in the Montego Bay lock-up. The guards posted a sign instructing those who wished to purchase a meal for family members to visit a specific gasoline station. A credible report existed of families paying for meals, without receipts or confirmation that a meal was delivered, suggesting the administrators pocketed the money. Attorneys reported extreme difficulty reaching their clients and conveyed that in most cases their detainees did not know why they were arrested. After receiving citizen complaints and some media coverage, the government took some corrective actions to reduce the number of detainees and improve the conditions of the detention facility.

Physical conditions in correctional facilities were slightly better than police lock-ups, but overcrowding remained a concern. At times cells in the maximum-security facilities at Tower Street and St. Catherine held 200 percent of their intended capacity. Local NGOs reported that this occurred because prison administrators did not triage prisoners to lower-security facilities as they should have. Cells were very dark, had subpar bathroom and toilet facilities, and limited ventilation. Prisoners sometimes were unable to receive required medication, including medication for HIV, according to UNAIDS. The HIV prevalence rate among incarcerated populations (more than 3 percent) was reportedly as much as double that of the general population. Four part-time psychiatrists cared for at least 225 inmates diagnosed as persons with mental disabilities in 11 facilities across the island.

Administration: Independent authorities investigated allegations of abuse and inhuman conditions. Official complaints and investigations were infrequent and likely underreported. The Office of the Children’s Advocate investigated matters involving minors.

Independent Monitoring: Justices of the Peace and representatives from the Police Civilian Oversight Authority (PCOA) visited correctional centers and lock-ups regularly. The PCOA submitted reports to the Ministry of National Security with recommendations to improve conditions. Citizen groups and NGOs believed the ministry rarely acted upon the recommendations.

The constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention but permits arrest with “reasonable suspicion of [a subject] having committed or …about to commit a criminal offense.” The law provides for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of his or her arrest or detention in court, and the government generally observed these requirements; however, abuses arose because police regularly ignored the “reasonable suspicion” requirement, arraignment procedures were very lengthy, and large portions of the country were under a state of emergency.

When a public state of emergency (SOE) is declared, the police and military have search, seizure, and arrest authority without a warrant. A state of emergency expires in 14 days unless parliament agrees to extend it. Additionally, the government can identify zones of special operations (ZOSOs), which confers the same authority to security forces, albeit within much smaller physical boundaries. During the year the prime minister declared three geographic areas to fall under an SOE–St. James Parish, announced in January; St. Catherine Parish North Division, declared in March; and a segment of Kingston and St. Andrew Parish, announced in September. Arbitrary and lengthy detentions took place in the execution of both the ZOSOs and SOEs. The Office of the Public Defender, commissioned by parliament to investigate civil and human rights abuses, received reports that security forces temporarily detained more than 2,000 persons in Montego Bay, which was within the St. James SOE, from January to October. Across the country police detained 6,000 persons during the same period. The average length of detention was four days. Extremely few of these arrests resulted in charges.

ROLE OF THE POLICE AND SECURITY APPARATUS

The prime minister has general authority over the Jamaican Defense Board and, as Chairman of the Board, has ministerial responsibility for defense-related matters including the command, discipline, and administration of forces. He is the de facto Minister of Defense. The Ministry of National Security, however, functions as the ministerial home of the Jamaica Defense Force (JDF) and directs policy over the security forces. The JCF, with units for community policing, special response, intelligence gathering, and internal affairs, has primary responsibility for internal security. The JDF’s mandate is to maintain the integrity of Jamaica’s waters and airspace and to provide aid to the civil authorities when appropriate. The JDF, including the Coast Guard, has responsibility for national defense and maritime narcotics interdiction. When the prime minister and parliament declare a state of emergency, the JDF has arrest authority and operational partnership alongside the JCF. The Passport, Immigration, and Citizenship Agency has responsibility for migration.

Civilian authorities maintained effective control over security forces. The government had mechanisms to investigate and punish police abuse, but they were not always employed.

There were hundreds of abuse and wrongful harm complaints regarding the security forces. INDECOM investigated actions by members of the security forces and other agents of the state that resulted in death, injury, or the abuse of civil rights. When appropriate, INDECOM forwarded cases to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for agents to make an arrest. INDECOM remained one of the few external and independent oversight commissions that monitored security forces, but it was unable to investigate each case thoroughly. As of October 23, INDECOM reported 122 security force-related fatalities.

ARREST PROCEDURES AND TREATMENT OF DETAINEES

Police officers may arrest without warrant where a felony, treason, or breach of the peace is committed or attempted in the officer’s presence. Upon arrest, the officer is required to tell a suspect in clear language the offense(s) for which the individual is being arrested. Any officer may execute a warrant that is lawfully issued by a judge or justice of the peace without being in possession of the warrant. The officer must produce the warrant if the suspect requests it as soon as practical after the arrest. The decision to charge or release must be resolved within 48 hours, although a judge or justice of the peace may extend the period of custody.

Security forces did not always follow these official procedures. Government officials and members of civil society reported that the public perceived police could arrest regardless of judicial authorization.

Additionally, there were reports of arrests and prolonged periods of detention in which police did not inform the suspect of the official charges. There were multiple reports that detainees did not have access to legal counsel and that apprehended suspects could not notify family members. NGOs estimated that 90 percent of all arrests occurred without a warrant. A police officer could simultaneously arrest and deny bail. The relative looseness in procedure lent itself to low-level corruption where a police constable could accept bribes in lieu of an arrest.

Arbitrary Arrest: Cases of arbitrary detention were greatest in the parishes of St. James and St. Catherine. Since January and March, respectively, the government declared a SOE in these areas because of high levels of criminal and gang violence. The government deployed the military to support local law enforcement. Under these orders security forces carried out a wide-reaching campaign of arbitrary detention and incarceration in an attempt to contain the violence. Media reported that security forces arrested and detained more than 6,000 persons under these conditions. In some cases the police released persons after two weeks of imprisonment only to rearrest them and keep them in jail. Officials, NGOs, and security experts speculated security forces had orders to meet a specified number of arrests each day. There were few official investigations or prosecutions of security force members involved in arbitrary arrests.

Pretrial Detention: Lock-ups are intended for short-term detentions of 48 hours or less, but often the government held suspects in these facilities without charge or awaiting trial for much longer periods. A lack of administrative follow-through after the arrest created problems where persons were incarcerated without any accompanying paperwork. In some cases, weeks, days, or months later, authorities could not ascertain why someone was arrested.

The Office of the Public Defender received reports that when someone was arrested in a ZOSO, the average time in detention was four days. The majority of arrests ended with no charges and the suspect released. The Office of the Public Defender estimated that 14 persons arrested in a ZOSO during the year had been held without charge in excess of 100 days.

The constitution provides for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence and impartiality. An extreme backlog of criminal cases, however, led to a denial of fair public trial for thousands of citizens.

The Ministry of Justice estimated that more than 400,000 criminal cases were awaiting trial. This delay occurred from numerous causes. Defense attorneys often requested committal proceedings, which are lengthy and resource intensive. Additionally, the legal infrastructure in terms of buildings, judges, courts, and other facilities remained virtually the same despite the huge backlog. Finally, the courts were hesitant to implement technological improvements such as teleconferencing witness testimony or admitting videos recorded from a telephone. Consequently, criminal proceedings could extend for years. The government’s statistical office reported the legal system failed to convict in more than 90 percent of murder cases. During the year courts made significant efforts to address the backlog by closely monitoring and reporting case throughput to the Ministry of Justice.

TRIAL PROCEDURES

The constitution provides for the right to a fair and public trial, and an independent judiciary generally enforced this right. The law provides defendants a presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, and the ability to confront witnesses. Defendants have the right to be informed of the charges against them and the right to a trial within a reasonable time. Defendants had ample time to prepare defense and may not be compelled to testify or confess guilt. They have the right to appeal. Public attorneys were available to defend the indigent, except those charged with drug-related crimes or high-level criminal conspiracy. The government provided free assistance of an interpreter as necessary. The Supreme Court tries serious criminal offenses, which include all murder cases.

POLITICAL PRISONERS AND DETAINEES

There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.

CIVIL JUDICIAL PROCEDURES AND REMEDIES

There is an independent and impartial civil judiciary process. Complainants may bring human rights abuse cases to the courts for civil remediation, but awards were difficult to collect. The government is required to undertake pretrial negotiations or mediation in an attempt to settle out of court, but this rarely occurred. When there were settlements, the government often lacked the funds to pay, resulting in a backlog of awards.

Although the constitution prohibits such actions, the law gives security personnel broad powers of search and seizure. The law allows warrantless searches of a person, vehicle, ship, or boat if a police officer has good reason to be suspicious. Police on occasion were accused of conducting searches without warrants.

In the ZOSOs the government began taking biometrics from persons it temporarily detained. Security forces were able to apprehend wide swaths of the male population in ZOSOs under broad arrest authority. NGOs contended that ZOSOs became a subterfuge for the government to capture biometric data indiscriminately from the public without consent. Reports estimated that as many as 6,000 persons were affected.

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

The constitution provides for freedom of expression, including for the press, and the government generally respected this right. An independent press, generally effective judicial protection, and a functioning democratic political system combined to promote freedom of expression, including for the press. Independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction.

INTERNET FREEDOM

The government did not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content, and there were no credible reports that the government monitored private online communications without appropriate legal authority.

According to the International Telecommunication Union, 49 percent of the population used the internet in 2017.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND CULTURAL EVENTS

There were no government restrictions on academic freedom.

The Broadcasting Commission of Jamaica barred certain lyrics and music videos, including songs referring to violent sex or violence against women, children, and other vulnerable persons, and expunged lyrics deemed inappropriate to broadcast.

b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

The constitution provides for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and the government generally respected these rights.

c. Freedom of Religion

See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.

d. Freedom of Movement, Internally Displaced Persons, Protection of Refugees, and Stateless Persons

The law provides for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, repatriation, and the government generally respected these rights.

The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to internally displaced persons, refugees, returning refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons, or other persons of concern.

PROTECTION OF REFUGEES

Access to Asylum: The law does not provide for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government has not established a system for providing protection to refugees. The government handles each potential asylum seeker administratively on an individual basis. The government can grant a form of limited status to those with citizenship in a commonwealth country.

The law provides citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage.

Elections and Political Participation

Recent Elections: Since the 2016 national elections, the country held by-elections in October 2017 and in March to fill four seats in parliament. The Jamaica Labour Party maintained a majority in parliament of 33 of 63 members in the House of Representatives. Observers judged all recent elections to be transparent, free, and fair.

Participation of Women and Minorities: No laws limit participation of women or members of minorities in the political process, and they did participate.

a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining

The law provides for the rights of workers to form or join independent unions and to bargain collectively. The law does not provide for the right to strike, although the constitution provides for the freedom of peaceful assembly and association. Additionally, the law allows all workers to take part, at any appropriate time, in the activities of a trade union of which they are members. The law prohibits antiunion discrimination and provides for the Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) to reinstate a worker if a dismissal is found to be unjustified. The law makes it a criminal offense to prevent or deter a worker from exercising the right to participate in trade union activities or to dismiss, penalize, or otherwise discriminate against a worker for exercising these rights.

There are aspects of the law that inhibit the ability to organize. The government defines 10 categories of services as “essential.” These include water, electricity, health, hospital, sanitation, transportation, firefighting, corrections, overseas telecommunication, and telephone services. Before workers in these categories can legally strike, they must take disputes to the Ministry of Labor and Social Security and allow the ministry to attempt to settle the dispute amicably. The International Labor Organization also raised concerns that this definition of essential services was too broad. Additionally, the government prohibited unionizing in export processing zones, which are industrial areas with special tax and trade incentives to attract foreign investment. This law heavily affected the bauxite industry, which employed thousands of workers.

The law mandates that in the case of any doubt or dispute as to whether workers may exercise bargaining rights, the labor minister must conduct a secret ballot requiring that a majority of workers vote. For unions that represent less than 30 percent of workers eligible to vote, the minister grants joint bargaining rights to two or more unions. The minister of labor may apply through the Supreme Court to curtail an industrial action such as a strike or lockout when the minister deems that industrial action to be harmful to national security or the national economy, or may have the potential to endanger the lives of a substantial number of persons. In such cases the minister refers industrial disputes to compulsory arbitration. The IDT hears cases when management and labor fail to reach agreement, including those involving nonunionized workers.

Although the government generally attempted to enforce the law, firms and other large employers were able to appeal and delay resolution of their cases for years. While cases are, by law, to be resolved within 21 days, the tribunal decided most cases in four to five months. Some took longer to resolve due to the complexity of the dispute or delays requested by involved parties. The IDT decisions are formal and binding unless challenged specifically on a point of law. Parties may apply for judicial review by the Supreme Court. Penalties were marginally sufficient to deter violations, but large firms such as those in the bauxite and construction industry used government influence to shape the court’s decisions.

The government generally respected freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. Worker organizations operated without interference, although the government maintained the right to monitor their activities. While employers generally respected the law prohibiting antiunion discrimination, some labor unions reported that private-sector workers were fearful of management retaliation against unionization. It was not uncommon for private-sector employers to dismiss union workers and rehire them as contractors.

b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor

The law criminalizes all forms of forced or compulsory labor. A national task force on trafficking in persons consisting of government entities continued its governmental and public outreach to sensitize citizens to forced labor and trafficking violations. The law also prohibits the trafficking of children and penalizes perpetrators with a fine or imprisonment.

The country is a source and destination for adults and children subjected to forced labor. Foreign citizens were compelled into forced labor aboard foreign-flagged fishing vessels operating in the country’s waters. More commonly, foreign women were exploited for commercial sex in nightclubs or trafficked into domestic servitude. The penalty for forced labor is imprisonment, a fine, or both, and it was sufficiently stringent to deter violations. While the government investigated some suspected cases of forced labor, it often did not effectively enforce applicable laws.

Also see the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/.

c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment

The law prohibits the worst forms of child labor and provides a minimum age of employment in all sectors. There are limitations on working hours. The government did not effectively enforce the law, and penalties only marginally deterred violations.

The minimum age for general employment is 15, with strict prohibitions on employing children under age 13 in any type of work. The law permits children between ages 13 and 15 to engage in “light work.” While the labor ministry does not have an official definition for this status, it maintained a list of prescribed occupations applicable for those ages 13 to 15.

The government estimated that more than 24,400 children ages five to 14 years old were engaged in child labor. Government agencies did not inspect the informal sector, so the number was likely to be underreported. Children continued to work in farming, fishing, and in public markets. Children were employed as domestic servants in homes or for street work, such as peddling goods, services, begging, and garbage salvaging. In the worst forms of child labor, commercial sexual exploitation remained prevalent. Children were also victims of forced labor in domestic work. Violent gangs used children to courier drugs and weapons, as lookouts, and as armed gunmen.

Also see the Department of Labor’s Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor at www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/child-labor/findings/ .

d. Discrimination with Respect to Employment and Occupation

Laws and regulations do not prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity. There were limited reports of cases filed for discrimination in employment or occupation during the year, but these instances were likely to be underreported. Women’s salaries lagged behind men’s, and persons with disabilities often lacked access to the workplace. Those who were subject to workplace discrimination had little confidence that legal recourse was available to them.

e. Acceptable Conditions of Work

The minimum wage was 7,000 JMD ($53) per week. According to the World Bank, this wage was above the estimate for the poverty income level. Most workers received more than the legal minimum wage, and some minimum-wage earners held two or more jobs.

The law provides for a standard 40-hour workweek and mandates at least one day of rest per week. Employers must compensate work in excess of 40 hours per week at overtime rates, a provision employers generally respected. The law also provides for paid annual holidays. The government did not universally apply the law that restricts workdays to 12 hours or less.

The Industrial Safety Division enforced industrial health and safety standards. It conducted inspections, investigated accidents, warned violators, and gave them a period in which to correct violations. If a violation was not corrected within the given time, the violator was taken to court. The law stipulates penalties and fines, and the minister of labor and social security has the authority to increase any monetary penalty. The government sets occupational safety and health standards, which were appropriate for the main industries in the country.

The government did not effectively enforce the law. Insufficient staffing in the Ministries of Labor and Social Security, Finance and Public Service, and National Security contributed to difficulties in enforcing workplace regulations. Legal fines or imprisonment were marginally sufficient to deter violations, and the labor ministry gained compliance in the vast majority of cases by threatening legal action. The ability of defendants to appeal a case repeatedly in the court system mitigated the effectiveness of penalties. The law has no provisions that explicitly give workers the ability to remove themselves from hazardous conditions without jeopardy to employment.

Unofficial sources estimated that up to 40 percent of citizens worked in the informal sector, where the labor law applied. Most violations pertaining to acceptable conditions of work occurred in the informal sector.