[imh]

I had to look up "penal offense." The relevant definition seems to be "liable to punishment." Isn't that exactly what termination would be? If you terminate someone for a thing, I'd say that fits the bill as punishment for the thing.

[eesmith]

The linked-to text from the UDHR starts "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense."

If your choice of definition were correct, that would mean that any firing which is part of a punishment would have to go through the court system first. Since that isn't the case, that means your choice of definition is not correct.

The penal code is "a code of laws concerning crimes and offenses and their punishment" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penal%20code . A penal offense is something which is counter to the penal code.

[dragonwriter]

> I had to look up "penal offense." The relevant definition seems to be "liable to punishment."

You seem to have looked up “penal” alone in a general-use dictionary, rather than the legal term “penal offense” in a law dictionary. Unsurprisingly, the treaty, a document of international law, uses a legal term of art in (one of) it's legal sense(s). The term generally means “an offense punishable by law”, but is more specifically construed in a couple different senses, narrowly as synonymous with criminal offenses, but sometimes more broadly incorporating also offenses which are not criminal but include an exemplary / punitive sanction as well as (and particularly not tied to) any compensatory one.

Termination of employment is not a sanction (punitive or otherwise) by law. (Well, in the case under discussion; it can be a legal sanction, e.g., under military law.)