This ruling did not emerge in a vacuum. It confirms and applies standards that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) had systematised five years earlier, on 28 December 2021. The IACHR approved its thematic report Right to Self-Determination of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. In that report, the Commission identified autonomy — that is, the right of peoples to govern themselves, define their own institutions and decide on their internal affairs — as one of the constituent elements of self-determination, alongside self-identification, cultural identity, collective property, political and participation rights, and the rights to free, prior, and informed consultation and consent.

Five years after that report, and with a recent case once again placing the issue on the regional agenda, it is worth examining what the Inter-American System has specifically noted about the right of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples to autonomy and self-government in its various dimensions. The purpose of the article is to examine the standards developed by the Commission and the Court, showing that the U’wa case is not an isolated event. Rather, the U’wa case serves as the most recent expression of a sustained body of institutional work spanning more than two decades, through the IACHR’s thematic and case reports and a continually evolving body of Inter-American jurisprudence.

Autonomy at the Core of Self-Determination

The self-determination of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples goes beyond the recognition of collective ownership of their lands. As the IACHR has stated, this right also entails the power to govern their territories through their own authorities, as part of the right to autonomy or self-government expressly recognised in Article XXI of the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (ADRIP) and Article 4 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The Commission notes that the exercise of territorial governance is one of the most significant expressions of Indigenous and Tribal self-determination, as it entails the recognition of their own systems of government, which exercise control over, manage, and administer their ancestral territories.

Such control goes beyond holding title to the land. The IACHR emphasises that an essential component of Indigenous and Tribal autonomy is effective control over ancestral territories and the natural resources found within them. Ancestral territories and such natural resources constitute the material basis for the existence of these peoples as collective subjects, rather than commodities. They serve as “the basis of their economic subsistence” as well as a “source of their cultural identity and spiritual well-being”. However, the Commission notes with concern that, to date, very few States in the region have established legal or administrative mechanisms to guarantee the autonomy of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples over their natural resources and means of subsistence. On the contrary, it points out that domestic legal frameworks generally prevent these peoples from holding rights over the natural resources within their own habitats.

As early as 2001, in the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, the Inter-American Court recognised the close relationship between territory and the subsistence of Indigenous Peoples as organised collectives.

As early as 2001, in the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, the Inter-American Court recognised the close relationship between territory and the subsistence of Indigenous Peoples as organised collectives.

This difficulty is compounded by territorial fragmentation. The Commission has found that granting land titles to individual communities, rather than to entire peoples or territories, can exclude areas that are essential to their way of life and seriously hinder the exercise of autonomy. This is further compounded by the fragmentation caused by State borders themselves, which, in the case of cross-border and binational peoples — as in the Amazonian corridor between Colombia, Ecuador and Peru — restricts the exercise of rights associated with historical patterns of territorial mobility that do not recognise national boundaries.

This understanding of autonomy as territorial control is not new to the Inter-American System. As early as 2001, in the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, the Inter-American Court recognised the close relationship between territory and the subsistence of Indigenous Peoples as organised collectives. In doing so, it laid the foundations upon which, two decades later, the Commission would develop specific standards on autonomy and self-government.

Self-Government Within, Participation Beyond

The IACHR understands the right to autonomy or self-government as having a dual dimension. On the one hand, it entails the right of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples to have an autonomous government; on the other, it encompasses their right to participate in the broader social and political structures of which they form part, including the State itself.

The internal dimension entails the recognition and preservation of their own decision-making institutions, including the free selection of their traditional authorities without external interference. The State, in turn, has a general duty not to interfere with the functioning of these institutions. The Commission is explicit on this point: where a legal system requires a State authority to certify the election of an Indigenous authority, such certification is merely a declaratory record of the will of the people, as expressed through its respective territorial or community assembly. Under no circumstances may this replace, override, or supersede the decision taken collectively.

The Commission has documented the concrete consequences of failing to uphold this standard: both State action and inaction that foster the creation of “parallel” governments alongside those legitimately elected by Indigenous Peoples constitute violations of the right to self-government. This seriously undermines their self-determination, weakens traditional structures and can lead to social conflict within the communities themselves.

On a particularly important point, the Commission expressly rejects framing consent as a “right of veto”. It considers that such a view oversimplifies the issue and disregards the self-determination of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.

The Commission expressly rejects framing consent as a “right of veto”. It considers that such a view oversimplifies the issue and disregards the self-determination of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.

In its external dimension, the right to political participation requires that Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, through their own authorities and institutions, take part in State decision-making processes that may affect their rights. The Commission makes clear that such participation must be effective, rather than merely formal. It is not sufficient to entrust representation to a local or regional government authority that may not necessarily be familiar with the priorities and concerns of the people in question. In this regard, the IACHR has also noted with concern that political participation quotas do not always ensure genuine representation and that, in certain contexts, political party co-optation has resulted in a loss of political autonomy for Indigenous Peoples.

For the IACHR, the right to prior, free and informed consultation and consent is a direct manifestation of self-determination rather than a mere administrative procedure. It is the fundamental premise that enables peoples to determine how they wish to exercise the rights to which they are entitled, closely linking it to the aforementioned external dimension. On a particularly important point, the Commission expressly rejects framing consent as a “right of veto”. It considers that such a view oversimplifies the issue and disregards the self-determination of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples by wrongly assuming that the State’s decision-making process has the power to forcibly impose a particular activity.

Two Decades of Inter-American Standards

These developments by the Commission both draw on and contribute to a body of Inter-American Court jurisprudence that has evolved over more than 20 years. In the 2007 case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, the Court established that, in the case of large-scale development or investment projects that would have a major impact on Indigenous or Tribal territory, the State has not only a duty to consult but also an obligation to obtain the people’s prior, free and informed consent, in accordance with their own customs and traditions. Five years later, in the case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, the Court further developed the relationship between territory, cultural identity and a people’s ability to develop and pursue their own plans for life.

In 2020, in the case of the Indigenous Communities Members of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina, the Court went a step further. The Court extensively linked economic, social, cultural and environmental rights to autonomy and the effective enjoyment of collective territory, recognising the interdependence of these rights. This includes the rights to a healthy environment, adequate food, water and cultural identity. These developments were systematised by the IACHR in its December 2021 report, in which it devotes a specific section to the internal and external dimensions of autonomy and their relationship with economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. The U’wa case, with which this article opens, reaffirms this same line of thought in a highly contemporary context: that of extractive projects overlapping ancestral territories, one of the situations that the IACHR itself identifies as recurring across the region.

This body of work by the Commission and the Court is underpinned by four approaches that the IACHR applies across the right to self-determination and that also provide a framework for autonomy. The first is its reparative nature: self-determination is understood as a corrective response to the historical injustices of dispossession, colonisation and denial of rights suffered by these peoples. The second is interculturality, which requires a shift from assimilation towards coexistence based on respect for different worldviews, together with a genuine sharing of decision-making power over their own development priorities. The third is its cross-cutting nature: for the Commission, self-determination should guide the way in which the State guarantees all other rights of these peoples, rather than being treated as an isolated issue. The fourth and final approach combines gender and intergenerational perspectives: the IACHR has highlighted the participation of Indigenous women in self-government and community leadership, as well as intergenerational solidarity as a means of ensuring that their own forms of organisation are sustained over time.

A Gap Yet to Be Closed

Five years after the IACHR report, the Inter-American standard on the autonomy of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples is clearly established. Autonomy is not a discretionary concession by States, but a pre-existing right which, as the Commission itself recalls, “should not be understood as a concession or something granted”. What persists, however, is the gap between this standard and its effective implementation: the Commission notes that very few States in the region currently have legal or administrative mechanisms in place to guarantee Indigenous autonomy over their territories and natural resources.

Closing this gap requires States to bring their legal and institutional frameworks into line with the standards developed by the Inter-American System, rather than treating the recognition of Indigenous autonomy as an exception or a concession. In this endeavour, both the IACHR — through its thematic and case reports and its ongoing monitoring — and the Inter-American Court — through its continually evolving jurisprudence, of which the U’wa case is but one recent expression — continue to provide a reference framework for Indigenous and Tribal Peoples throughout the Americas to exercise their right to self-government in practice.

I am grateful to Mishkila Rojas, a specialist with the IACHR Rapporteurship on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, for her valuable support in the preparation of this article.

The post Indigenous Autonomy in the Inter-American System: Five Years after the IACHR Report on Self-Determination appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

High international gold prices have further increased the economic incentives driving the expansion of these activities. According to the Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project (MAAP), the Amazon region lost more than 736,000 hectares of primary forest in 2025, with a significant proportion of mining-affected areas located within protected areas and Indigenous territories. Against this backdrop, the Office of the Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights (REDESCA) of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) is preparing a regional report examining the relationship between illegal gold mining, human rights violations, territories and governance across countries in the Amazon and the Guiana Shield.

From Alerts to Regional Analysis

The decision to prepare this report builds on several years of monitoring and documentation by the Inter-American Commission and its Office of the Special Rapporteur in response to growing concern over this issue across the region. REDESCA identified it as a priority area in its 2024–2026 Work Plan. In 2019, in its report on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Pan-Amazon Region, the IACHR warned of exposure to high levels of mercury and its impacts on water, biodiversity, and health. In 2021, Resolution 3/21 on the Climate Emergency identified environmental degradation as one of the major threats to human rights in the region.

In April 2024, during an in loco visit to Colombia, the Commission and its Office of the Special Rapporteur identified illegal mining as a driver of water pollution, forced displacement and the financing of criminal organisations. In October of that year, the IACHR and REDESCA raised concerns about the situation of the Yanomami people in the Orinoco Mining Arc, where communities faced displacement, mercury contamination, and the presence of armed groups. In March 2025, REDESCA called for stronger international cooperation, improved gold traceability and tighter controls on the trade in inputs such as mercury. In March 2026, it issued a further alert on the impacts of illegal mining on the human right to water. The issue has also been consistently documented in the Office of the Special Rapporteur’s annual reports on countries across the region.

REDESCA pays particular attention to the differentiated impacts on Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant and tribal communities, women, children and adolescents, and human rights and environmental defenders.

REDESCA pays particular attention to the differentiated impacts on Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant and tribal communities, women, children and adolescents.

The objective of the report is to analyse, from a human rights perspective and, in particular, from the perspective of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights, the impacts of illegal gold mining, as well as the territorial, cross-border and governance dynamics associated with its expansion. REDESCA pays particular attention to the differentiated impacts on Indigenous Peoples (including those in voluntary isolation and initial contact), Afro-descendant and tribal communities, women, children and adolescents, and human rights and environmental defenders.

Without prejudging the conclusions of the report, which is currently under preparation, the information gathered to date highlights several dimensions of particular relevance to the analysis: mercury contamination and other impacts on health and food; deforestation and ecosystem degradation; loss of territorial control; the expansion of illicit economies and the presence of armed actors; weaknesses in institutional responses; and challenges in ensuring traceability and due diligence throughout the gold supply chain.

A Process Developed through Dialogue and Consultation

The development process of the report has drawn on a range of mechanisms for dialogue, consultation and information gathering. As part of this process, the IACHR convened a regional hearing on its own initiative during its 195th Period of Sessions, held in Guatemala City, with the participation of civil society organisations and representatives of communities and Indigenous Peoples. REDESCA subsequently sent requests for information to States and issued a call for contributions from organisations, affected communities and experts.

From 15 to 19 June 2026, REDESCA conducted a working visit to Brazil, holding meetings with authorities and civil society organisations in Brasília and Boa Vista, Roraima. During the visit, it participated in the 8th General Assembly of the Hutukara Yanomami Association, alongside Indigenous leaders. In July, the Office of the Special Rapporteur held a hybrid consultation with experts in Bogotá and participated in the Regional Meeting on Mining, Territorial Governance and Indigenous Rights in the Amazon, held in Tena, Ecuador. The meeting was organised by PAKKIRU, FOIN Ecuador and the Sacha Supay Quichua Institute of Biotechnology, with the support of IWGIA. There, REDESCA engaged in dialogue with Indigenous leaders from Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.

These spaces have made it possible to incorporate not only information on the impacts of illegal mining, but also the experiences, knowledge and responses of Indigenous Peoples themselves. Across the region, Indigenous communities, organisations and authorities have developed territorial monitoring and protection mechanisms, mapping and environmental documentation tools, early warning systems and strategies for engaging with public authorities. Incorporating this knowledge and experience is essential to understanding the territorial dynamics of illegal mining and to developing responses that recognise Indigenous Peoples’ autonomy, ensure their effective participation and reflect the priorities they themselves have identified.

Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights, Territory and the Continuity of Community Life

The impacts of illegal gold mining extend beyond pollution and the loss of forest cover. In Indigenous territories, deforestation, changes to watercourses and ecosystem degradation can affect the territorial relationships that sustain food, health, livelihoods, cultural and spiritual practices and, more broadly, the conditions necessary for the continuity of community life. From an Inter-American human rights perspective, the protection of forests is therefore closely linked to the protection of territories, economic, social, cultural and environmental rights, cultural identity and the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples.

Mercury contamination is one of the primary concerns emerging from the information gathered. Once released into the environment, mercury can be converted into methylmercury and accumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms, thereby entering the food chain of people living in the Amazon. The contamination of rivers can therefore also undermine the right to food by affecting the diets of many Indigenous and riverine communities and putting traditional food practices at risk.

Across territories in Peru, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela and other countries, evidence points to links between the expansion of mining, forest loss, the degradation of water sources and increased pressure on protected areas and Indigenous territories.

Across territories in Peru, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela and other countries, evidence points to links between the expansion of mining, forest loss and the degradation of water.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned of the serious neurological effects associated with exposure to methylmercury and the particularly high risks faced by children and pregnant women. Studies cited in the information reviewed by REDESCA have found elevated mercury levels in Indigenous communities in Brazil and Peru. Other health impacts add to these concerns: the transformation of territories associated with mining can create conditions conducive to the proliferation of disease vectors, including those responsible for the transmission of malaria.

Deforestation and habitat fragmentation constitute another key dimension of the challenges facing the Amazon. Across river basins and territories in Peru, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela and other countries, evidence points to links between the expansion of mining, forest loss, the degradation of water sources and increased pressure on protected areas and Indigenous territories. These dynamics are further exacerbated when they converge with other illicit economies and actors competing for territorial control.

Illegal Mining, Illicit Economies and Territorial Governance

Illegal gold mining does not operate in isolation. Across the Amazon, it is intertwined with drug trafficking networks, illegal logging, smuggling, the illegal trafficking of mining products, and other illicit economies. This convergence can lead to territorial control by armed groups, threats against Indigenous communities and authorities, restrictions on freedom of movement, and the weakening of State capacities for prevention, monitoring, enforcement and protection.

Gold has characteristics that facilitate its integration into ostensibly legal supply chains: it has a high value-to-weight ratio, can be melted down and mixed with gold from legal sources, and can be traded using irregular documentation or through jurisdictions with inadequate controls. Responses therefore cannot be limited to the places where extraction occurs. They require effective traceability mechanisms, cross-border cooperation and coordination among environmental, customs, financial and judicial authorities, as well as clear responsibilities for businesses involved throughout the gold supply chain.

The risks are particularly severe for Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation and initial contact, as any external interference can have irreversible consequences. Women, children and adolescents, Afro-descendant and tribal communities, and human rights and environmental defenders are also affected in distinct ways. In adverse contexts, these groups and individuals may face threats, harassment and violence.

A Report Designed as a Tool

The challenge does not end with documenting the expansion of illegal mining or identifying its impacts. The central question is how to translate human rights standards into responses that can effectively protect territories, prevent further harm and strengthen the capacity of Indigenous Peoples to participate in decisions that affect their ways of life.

The regional report being developed by REDESCA seeks to contribute to this objective by systematising relevant standards and developing recommendations for States, businesses and other relevant actors. At the same time, the process seeks to incorporate the experiences, knowledge and perspectives of Indigenous Peoples and affected communities, not merely as sources of information, but as essential actors in understanding territorial realities and developing appropriate responses.

Faced with an illicit economy that cuts across borders, supply chains and territories, responses must likewise be coordinated, preventive and cross-border in nature. The aim is for the report’s findings and standards to serve as practical tools for dialogue, the promotion of rights and the adoption of measures that place the protection of human rights and forests, as well as the right of Indigenous Peoples to determine the present and future of their territories, at the centre of the response.

The views expressed in this article are personal and do not necessarily reflect the position of REDESCA, the IACHR or the Organization of American States (OAS).

The post Gold, Territories and Rights: Illegal Mining in the Amazon and the Guiana Shield appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Facilitated by the current Special Rapporteur, Albert Barume, the event brought together representatives of Indigenous Peoples, sponsoring States, senior UN officials and non-governmental organisations, as well as former mandate holders: Professor James Anaya, Ambassador Francisco Cali Tzay and activist Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, who participated via a video message. A tribute was also paid to the first Special Rapporteur, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, with a minute of silence in recognition of his enduring legacy in the defence of the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Under the theme “25 years promoting the rights of Indigenous Peoples: impact, lessons learned and the future of the mandate”, the commemoration highlighted the trajectory of a mechanism that has established itself as one of the principal international instruments in this field.

An independent mechanism with real impact

Opening the event, Dr Albert K. Barume stressed that the anniversary was not only an occasion for celebration, but also an opportunity to “examine the persistent gaps in the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. He further underscored the need to reinforce the relevance of the mandate in a global context marked by increasing pressures on human rights and multilateralism.

Since its establishment, the mandate has undertaken 51 official country visits, produced 62 thematic reports and engaged in more than a thousand communications addressed to States, companies and other actors. Through these actions, it has documented violations, shed light on structural patterns of discrimination and contributed to the interpretation of international law concerning Indigenous Peoples.

During the opening session, the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Ilze Brands Kehris, highlighted that the mandate has been “a critical and independent mechanism” that has helped address structural discrimination and strengthen accountability. However, she warned that violations persist—and in some cases are worsening—across all regions, largely driven by extractive development models advancing without the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples.

Land, criminalisation and business: persistent challenges

Throughout the event, participants shared a common diagnosis: the expansion of extractive, energy and infrastructure projects (including those linked to the “green” transition) continues to result in the forced displacement of entire communities, loss of lands, the criminalisation of Indigenous leaders and multiple forms of violence, particularly against Indigenous women and defenders.

In this context, Joan Carling, an Indigenous Peoples’ rights defender and Executive Director of Indigenous Peoples Rights International (IPRI), described the mandate as a “lifeline” for many Indigenous defenders facing unjust persecution. She also cited concrete cases in countries such as the Philippines and Guatemala, where the interventions of the Special Rapporteur proved decisive in securing the release of individuals criminalised for defending their lands.

The role of States and international cooperation

Mexico and Guatemala, the longstanding sponsoring States of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, once again reaffirmed their political support. Mexico’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Alicia Bárcena, emphasised the mandate’s pivotal role in advancing the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and highlighted recent progress in her country, including a constitutional reform recognising Indigenous Peoples as subjects of public law.

From Guatemala, Ana Pérez Conguache, representing the Presidential Commission against Discrimination and Racism against Indigenous Peoples, underscored the importance of in situ visits by Special Rapporteurs in enabling direct engagement with affected communities and fostering dialogue with States. She also pointed out the significance of the recommendations issued, while acknowledging that serious challenges persist, including the ongoing criminalisation of Indigenous leaders.

A collective legacy and an agenda for the future

One of the central moments of the event was a retrospective of the mandate presented through a commemorative video, highlighting the contributions of the five Special Rapporteurs: Rodolfo Stavenhagen, James Anaya, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Francisco Calí Tzay and, currently, Albert Barume. From land rights and self-determination to the impacts of climate change and criminalisation, each has shaped a far-reaching normative and political legacy.

In the dialogue with former mandate holders, there was broad agreement that the mandate’s greatest strength lies in amplifying the voices of Indigenous Peoples, bridging the gap between standards and practice, and strengthening coordination with other UN mechanisms—such as the Permanent Forum and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—particularly in a context of mounting challenges to the international human rights system and its protection and promotion frameworks.

In closing the event, and against the backdrop of these challenges, Albert Barume stressed that the coming years will require a strategic approach to defence: “We cannot take for granted the achievements of these past 25 years. Safeguarding them is a collective responsibility.” He further emphasised the need to protect what has been achieved, to strengthen follow-up to recommendations, and to secure adequate financial resources.

The post 25 years since the establishment of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Chairperson and members of the Expert Mechanism,

Distinguished Members of the Permanent Forum,

Chairperson of the Board of Trustee of the Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples

Assistant-Secretary-General for Human Rights,

Indigenous Peoples’ representatives,

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

Colleagues, friends,

I am honoured to address this 25th session of the UN Permanent Forum and engage with all participants in this interactive dialogue concerning the human rights situation of Indigenous Peoples. I am glad that this dialogue is held during the first week of the Forum, which helps to ensure wider and more inclusive participation from representatives and partners of Indigenous Peoples.

First of all, I want to offer my congratulations to you, madame Chairperson, on your re-appointment as Chair of the 25th session. I also wish all UNPFII members, especially the new ones, great success.

Madame Chairperson, I will focus my statement on three points today: first, this session’s theme of health in the context of conflict; second, an overview of the work of my mandate over the past fifteen months; and third, a few reflections on the broader global context affecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights.

I. Reflection on the theme of the UNPFII 25th Session

In conflict settings, Indigenous Peoples often suffer some of the gravest consequences, even though they have contributed least to the crises around them. Their lands are militarised or occupied, their communities are displaced, their leaders are threatened, and access to food, water, health care and education is disrupted. In these circumstances, health must be understood in a broad and holistic sense: not only as access to medical services, but as the ability to live in dignity, in peace, with cultural continuity, and with control over ancestral lands and resources.

II. Overview of activities by the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples

Madame Chairperson, as you are aware, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples is part of the Human Rights Council’s system of Special Procedures. These Special Procedures are independent human rights experts tasked with assessing, reporting, and advising on human rights issues, either thematically or by country.

The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples operates as a protective mechanism and is structured around four principal pillars: (1) thematic studies, (2) country visits, (3) addressing allegations of human rights violations or abuses, and (4) engaging in additional activities such as technical cooperation, raising awareness, building capacity, and promoting best practices.

I.1. Regarding thematic studies, in September 2025, I submitted my first report to the Human Rights Council. Focussed on recognition, this report highlights three cumulative steps that a State should undertake to recognise Indigenous Peoples as specific rights holders:

First, a State should formally recognise the distinct historical injustices faced by self-identifying Indigenous Peoples within its territory. Recognition is essential for redress; a State cannot remedy what it does not acknowledge. Second, a State should enact constitutional or legal provisions that explicitly recognise Indigenous Peoples as distinct rights holders. This includes incorporating relevant international standards into domestic law and ratifying pertinent international instruments. Finally, a State should undertake administrative registration of Indigenous Peoples within its territory to ensure their cultural integrity and prevent misidentification with other social groups, such as minorities, tribal peoples, marginalised or poor people, peasants, and local communities.

In October 2025, I submitted my second thematic report to the UN General Assembly, focusing on legal protections for Indigenous Peoples’ land and territories. The report emphasizes that most Indigenous Peoples now live on the few remaining areas of their ancestral lands after enduring repeated displacements for decades if not centuries. Therefore, since there is no more territory left to retreat to, Indigenous Peoples are increasingly standing up against further encroachment. The report further emphasizes a global high demand for Indigenous Peoples’ lands, which is primarily driven by five factors: transition minerals, carbon markets, the expansion of protected and conservation areas, energy transition initiatives, and geopolitical or international security interests involving Indigenous territories. The growing demand for Indigenous Peoples’ lands is leading to more persecution and criminalisation of those defending their rights, especially Indigenous leaders. Serious human rights violations—including arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearances, militarisation, and unlawful killings—are increasingly affecting Indigenous communities across the globe. In my report, I call upon States to shift the paradigm and adopt a new approach, recognising Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination to their lands and territories as a valuable asset to both national and international security. Defenders of Indigenous Peoples’ lands, territories and resources should be regarded as allies in the pursuit of justice, sustainability, and peace.

In 2026, my report to the United Nations General Assembly will maintain its emphasis on land rights by analysing States’ practices related to demarcation and registration, with the objective of identifying and sharing effective approaches or practices.

I would like to formally announce that during my tenure as Special Rapporteur, I will report on Indigenous Peoples’ land rights. These reports will aim to monitor, document, and track the impact of the five aforementioned factors contributing to the high demand for Indigenous Peoples’ lands.

My in-preparation 2026 report to the Human Rights Council will address historical and contemporary violations against Indigenous women and girls’ reproductive health and rights, a topic brought to the mandate’s attention by victims who felt their experiences remained insufficiently recognised and redressed. Furthermore, this report aims to support the comprehensive implementation of CEDAW’s General Recommendation No. 39, which was thoroughly discussed during last year’s Forum. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who has submitted the more than 70 contributions received for this report so far.

I.2. Concerning the second pillar of the SRIP mandate on country visits, I wish to inform the Forum that in September 2025, I officially visited Botswana, where the new President Duma Boko, a former Indigenous Peoples attorney, is placing human rights at the forefront of ongoing legal and policies reforms.

The historical injustices endured by Indigenous Peoples in Botswana over decades should inform and guide the reforms currently underway. Hence, my mission report underscores the urgent necessity for enhanced protection, including constitutional and legal recognition, effective enjoyment of land rights, equal access to justice and services, as well as safeguards for Indigenous languages and cultures.

I wish to express my gratitude to the Government of Botswana for its cooperation, as well as to the UNCT for its support during this visit.

This year, I will conduct an official visit to Australia from 2–13 November. I appreciate the Government of Australia and all individuals who have provided contributions in preparation for this trip. I would also like to acknowledge the Governments of Brazil and Guatemala for extending invitations for country visits, which unfortunately could not take place due to UN budget constraints limiting my mandate to one country mission per year. Additionally, I extend my thanks to the Government of New Zealand for its invitation for a mission in 2027.

I urge more countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and North America, to invite the mandate. Country visits help the Special Rapporteur engage directly with governments and Indigenous Peoples, and offer practical recommendations based on firsthand observation.

To conclude this section on country missions, I want to emphasize that the mandate still struggles with resource shortages, mainly due to persistent underfunding of the United Nations human rights system. This financial constraint limits visits and activities, making cooperation and follow-up from States even more important.

It is important that a Special Rapporteur’s country mission is effectively followed up. Accordingly, I urge all stakeholders to seize this window of opportunity for advancing Indigenous Peoples’ rights in Botswana and support the Government as well as Indigenous Peoples to translate the political will into effective implementation of rights.

I.3. The third pillar of the SRIP activities – which enables the mandate to receive allegations of human rights violations and abuses directly from Indigenous Peoples and engage States and other actors regarding those claims. I would like to report that in the last fifteen months, the mandate has sent more than 65 communications to States, private sector entities, and other actors. The 29 States engaged are, in alphabetical order: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Germany, Guatemala, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America and Vietnam.

Recent and notable communications have discussed the experiences of the Ogiek Indigenous People in Kenya, challenges faced by the Māori in New Zealand, the situation of Indigenous Peoples in Bangladesh’s Chittagong Hill Tracts, and the Guarani-Kaiowá in Brazil. They have also covered protests and repression involving Indigenous Peoples in Panama and Ecuador, as well as the effects of extractive and industrial projects on Indigenous communities in Mexico, Kenya, Indonesia, and Tanzania.

The mandate has also addressed communications with private companies, and financial institutions and other non-state actors involved in projects related to fossil fuel extraction, petrochemicals, geothermal ventures, mining, and conservation. These communications underline that businesses, investors, and other entities must exercise due diligence and respect Indigenous Peoples’ human rights.

Over the last fifteen months, the mandate has sent out 14 communications to businesses and other non-state actors, including Tullow Oil, Gulf Energy (affiliate Auron Energy E&P), Sikder Group, PROMAN, KFW IPEX-Bank, Gas y Petroquímica de Occidente SA, Sempra Infraestructura, Mexico Pacific Limited, LNG Alliance Pte Ltd Singapore, Instalaciones Energéticas Cosala, Epcilon LNG, Empresa de Servicios Sanitarios Aguas San Isidro and the World Bank Group.

The allegations of human rights violations received by the mandate show five major trends occurring consistently across regions. Number one: There is widespread regression, as many countries are retreating from established standards on Indigenous Peoples’ rights, primarily for immediate political and economic benefit. This includes generalised non-implementation of court decisions and growing hate speech against Indigenous Peoples. Number two: Criminalisation of Indigenous leaders and defenders, with Indigenous women leaders facing heightened risks. In Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe, and other regions, reductions in civic space and restrictions on peaceful protest have resulted in Indigenous Peoples being perceived as threats to national interests. Numerous Indigenous leaders and individuals, like Daria Egereva and many others, are subject to killings, arbitrary detention, and are compelled to live in hiding. Number three, there is growing pressure on Indigenous territories due to extractive industries, infrastructure development, conservation efforts, and climate-related projects that proceed without proper consultation or free, prior, and informed consent, resulting in displacement. Number Four, many Indigenous Peoples’ territories have been occupied by non-State armed groups, criminal trafficking networks, and extremist or terrorist organizations. This has resulted in increased violence, particularly targeting women, and has led to Indigenous Peoples being unfairly classified as terrorists, enemies of the state, or perceived threats to national security and interests. Number Five, Indigenous Peoples in voluntary isolation remain particularly vulnerable.

Madame Chairperson, there are undeniably rising tensions between Indigenous Peoples and States. Accordingly, I urge States to promptly review their relationship with Indigenous Peoples in order to promote partnership and reconciliation, as outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

 I.4. The fourth pillar of the mandate is to promote good practices, raise awareness, and provide capacity building. The mandate goes beyond documenting violations; it aims to foster implementation and advance justice, recognition, and reconciliation. To that end, I have worked with various Indigenous Peoples’ organizations, academies, CSOs, regional human rights mechanisms such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and UN agencies, including UNESCO and WHO, discussing topics such as the decade for languages and the delisting as a narcotic substance of the coca leaf, which is the sacred for Indigenous Peoples.

III. Reflections on the global human rights trends and impact on Indigenous Peoples

I would like to reflect on how the global human rights situation affects the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Today, we are witnessing an era where human rights standards are often disregarded or actively resisted. This trend arises from heightened scepticism regarding multilateralism and the significance of international law. International law underpins Indigenous Peoples’ rights as Nations, making them more vulnerable if multilateral frameworks are weakened or disregarded.

Madame Chairperson, the 25th session of the UNPFII coincides with the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the SRIP mandate. I am pleased to announce that this milestone will be commemorated with a side event on Friday, 24 April. The event will feature prominent stakeholders, including former mandate holders such as Professor James Anaya and Ambassador Cali. This is not only an occasion to look back at its impact and draw lessons learned, but also to reflect on the future of the mandate, and to renew our collective commitment to stronger implementation, deeper partnership and more meaningful accountability.

Twenty-five years ago, when the Mandate of the SRIP was established, we lived in a compliance era, where compelling legal arguments grounded in international law would yield results and calls for redress held significant influence. Most countries still viewed international law as the force uniting eight billion people—regardless of their race, culture, development, or religion—into a single human family. Now, that unity is beginning to fracture; international law is questioned and powerful nations increasingly seek their own spheres of influence and attempt to assert dominance over others.

In such a global context characterised by non-compliance or questioning of international standards, there is only one option left for Indigenous Peoples: to stand their ground and continue to demand respect of their rights. Despite the setbacks and disregard for established norms, Indigenous Peoples must remain steadfast and vocal, refusing to be silenced or marginalised. Rights are never given on a golden platter; they are earned through defenders and victims standing up against violations. Indigenous Peoples’ persistent advocacy is essential in maintaining visibility and ensuring that their voices are heard on the global stage.

With the view to adjusting the mandate to this new global context, I have introduced new elements to the mandate. I have established regional legal teams to provide Indigenous Peoples with enhanced support and closer access to the mandate as they advocate for their human rights. I am pleased to announce that more than ten young Indigenous lawyers have joined regional teams for Africa, Latin America, Asia, and other parts of the world. These teams focus on communications to enhance the mandate’s response capacity and ensure that Indigenous Peoples feel more connected to it.

In closing, I would like to once again commend the work of the Forum, reaffirm my commitment as mandate holder to strengthen collaboration with other UN mechanisms related to Indigenous Peoples. I continue to believe in Indigenous Peoples’ ability to surmount challenges and shape their futures as guaranteed by international law. After twenty-five years of this mandate and twenty-five sessions of this Forum, it is clear that Indigenous Peoples’ rights are no longer on the fringes of the international system. This is one of the gains to preserve and fight for.

I thank you.

The post Statement by the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Laura Galvis (LG): When we talk about conflict and peace, we tend to do so from State or legal categories. What Indigenous principles do you consider fundamental to understanding the deep roots of violence against Indigenous Peoples?

Leonor Zalabata Torres (LZT): In order to talk about conflict, we need to start from the thinking and ways of life that exist in the world. Indigenous Peoples are cultures of peace. Our peaceful way of living is disrupted when external factors negatively transform our way of being in the world. Conflict has nothing to do with an alleged vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples but rather with external factors that undermine our way of thinking and living. Our way of life has developed over time and is still valid today. Indigenous Peoples have ancient traditions that are not stuck in the past; on the contrary, they are deeply contemporary to the evolution of humanity. We have learned other languages, we have been able to adapt without abandoning who we are. This capacity to adapt does not imply renouncing our principles but rather dialoguing with the world without losing our balance.

In Colombia, there are more than 60 Indigenous languages and, paradoxically, Indigenous Peoples are the most bilingual population in the country. Many of us have learned Spanish as the national language, without ceasing to speak, when it was not taken away from us, our mother tongue. This condition does not form an automatic loss of identity; it is also a form of cultural continuity. Spanish has become a vehicle through which Indigenous thought continues to be transmitted to Colombian society. Even though some languages have weakened, the spirit of Indigenous cultures continues to circulate, adapt and dialogue, without disappearing.

The problem arises when these balances are upset, sometimes even when there is no bad intent. When we intervene without knowing or understanding what a culture means, we interrupt already existing human development processes. This is when deep conflicts are generated. Territorial dispossession is one of the clearest expressions of this rupture: by separating peoples from their territories, a historical relationship with life is also broken.

Our knowledge is neither abstract nor merely symbolic. We are people with a deep knowledge of the territory, of the plants, of the climate, of the energies that sustain life. These practices have been effective for centuries, long before the Conquest, although we do not always explain them in the dominant languages. The fact that they are not understood from the outside does not mean that they do not work; it means that they answer to another rationale.

LG: How do Indigenous Peoples understand the concept of peace?

LZT: For us, peace is not something that is decreed. It has to do with the stability of life, with our customs, with the way we relate to the territory, to others and to the world. Values such as water, air and land are not individual goods; they are the common building blocks of collective life. When these values are subordinated to an idea of development that measures everything in terms of production or profitability, that balance is broken. Any recognition that does not understand peace as a deep relationship with life is therefore incomplete. It is like trying to recognize a spirit without a body: it is named but not sustained. Without territory, language and living practices, peace becomes an empty idea, disconnected from the real experience of the people.

LG: In Colombia, the armed conflict is usually referred to as a six-decade phenomenon. How does this change if we view the conflict from an Indigenous timeframe, in which the war does not begin with the armed actors but with older ruptures?

LZT: When the conflict is viewed from an Indigenous timeframe, the starting point changes radically. We are not talking about 60 years but centuries: a period in which we were not allowed to continue our own development, and were forced to defend ourselves permanently in order to exist. The Indigenous identity turned inwards. It has to do with knowledge, practices and a deep relationship with nature, the territory and the cosmos. This identity has been maintained despite the imposition of a single system of thought, the forced abandonment of our languages and customs and the denial of our knowledge systems.

Instead of allowing each culture to develop from its own thinking, a single idea of development and economic evolution was imposed. This generated a profound disruption of our ways of life and reduced us, for centuries, to permanently defending the right to be. The right to have came later, when the tangible elements began to be recognized. From an essential point of view, human development should be based on the recognition that we are different brothers and sisters. The lack of such recognition continues to fuel a conflict that is not only historical but also structural and global.

LG: Throughout your career, you have insisted that the constitutional recognition of Colombia as a multiethnic, multicultural and legally pluralistic country has opened the way for broader Indigenous participation. How do you view the impact of this recognition, both in national life and in multilateral spaces?

LZT: From our experience as Indigenous Peoples, Colombia’s constitutional recognition in 1991 was not only an internal legal change; it marked a turning point. For many years there was talk of “integration into national life” as if it implied ceasing to be what we were. With the 1991 Constitution, it was understood that the idea was not to integrate by subordinating ourselves but rather to recognize cultural diversity and legal pluralism as principles that the State must protect. This recognition also opened up an international outlook. It allowed us, the Colombian Indigenous Peoples, to relate to other peoples of the world without renouncing our own governments and ways of thinking. In this sense, the world became smaller and we began to recognize ourselves in common struggles with Indigenous Peoples from other regions.

LG: Given this experience, what role do international frameworks and mechanisms, particularly the United Nations System, now play in protecting Indigenous Peoples and in global peacebuilding?

LZT: The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples have been instrumental in expanding rights. These spaces are gaining value because they make a real contribution to peace and respect for Indigenous Peoples. They have helped to raise the visibility of and confront a deep political conflict related to territory, development and recognition of Indigenous Peoples, one which for decades was treated only as problem of internal governance. In contexts such as Colombia’s, this political conflict ended up turning into an armed conflict.

Human rights were long thought of almost exclusively from an individual logic. For Indigenous Peoples, this view is incomplete. Our rights are also collective and environmental because water, air, land and the stability of the territory do not belong to just one person: they sustain the life of all. International mechanisms have contributed to the fact that this vision is beginning to be recognized and discussed in global settings.

Our participation is becoming permanent, both in national and international life, because we have also understood that this constant presence is necessary. Humanity has not, however, yet fully accepted the fact that collective and environmental rights, and the practices that support them, should be understood as principles for a global peace. Indigenous Peoples have never stopped thinking about peace. A peace that is not only ours but also that of the countries and regions of the world. We are everywhere and, over time, we have sustained practices that allow us to live differently and to live together in balance. These practices do not belong only to the past: they are lessons that humanity needs to recover if it wants to build a lasting peace.

LG: Indigenous territories are currently at the centre of the energy transition, the dispute over minerals and the climate crisis. What conflicts are emerging from these global pressures?

LZT: When we talk about energy transition, climate crisis or strategic minerals today, it seems as if we are dealing with something completely new. But for me, that is not really the case. In many ways it is the same story, albeit with a different mechanism. In the past it was other resources, now it is the so-called critical minerals or clean energies. The names change, the discourse changes, but the territories at the heart of it all remain the same. And, with this, the conflicts over land, territorial boundaries and control over the spaces in which we live reappear.

Added to this is the climate crisis, which some still deny because they see it as an economic cost, but its impacts are already here. The melting of snow-capped mountains, for example, is not a theoretical discussion: it is directly affecting water sources, the cycles of nature and the lives of entire communities. Governments recognize that a crisis exists but they don’t know how to avoid it, mitigate it or really adapt to it. And, in this vacuum, decisions are once again imposed that do not stem from a care of life but from power and capital. This is where Indigenous Peoples are again exposed, even though we have historically protected these territories.

The idea still persists that Indigenous Peoples are the ones who must learn, as if other sectors of society already have all the answers. And yet the values I have been talking about: care of the air, of the water, of the river sources, do not belong to a particular culture. They sustain collective life. If taken care of, they benefit everyone. Pure air is not just for those who protect it: it circulates freely in time and space. These are practices that Indigenous Peoples have sustained over time, not in order to control nature but to maintain the balances that enable life.

I see some progress, for example, in spaces such as climate conferences, where the participation of civil society and Indigenous Peoples has been expanded and agreements and legal frameworks are discussed. This is important. But the underlying problem remains the same: an idea of development that justifies almost anything, even violence, in order to advance economically. Until this logic is questioned, these conflicts will continue to arise, even if we give them new names.

LG: In your view, peace does not seem to depend only on formal conflict resolution mechanisms but also on a deeper relationship with life. What is the place of Indigenous consciousness and cosmovision?

LZT: It is often thought that everything can be solved with mechanisms, standards or experts, and of course that is important, but it is not enough. There are practices that spread because they respond to specific interests and others that exist simply because they are a way of life. Awareness is not just about being informed and knowing the rules. It goes a little further than this. Having an identity means going beyond. In the case of the Indigenous Peoples, that beyond is in nature and in the cosmos. Human references, science, philosophy and law are important and provide clarity but they do not always manage to maintain that profound balance that the person and humanity need. These are issues that do not always fit into clear categories but which are worthy of further thought and conversation. That is why it is important that these dialogues exist.

LG: There is talk in some different spaces of a transformation of Indigenous leadership, especially with the greater visibility of women and youth. What changes are you seeing in the relationship between power, territory and participation in Indigenous Peoples?

LZT: For me, this issue cannot be understood by separating women from men or the young from the old. In our cultures, balance has always been found in complementarity. Women, men, youth, children and the elderly all fulfil different but necessary roles. It is not a division by category but a living relationship. The participation of Indigenous women has grown, it is true, and so has their political visibility. But not because we are separating ourselves from the Indigenous movement, rather because this complementarity has been strengthened. Many of us have been able to participate because we have the support of our Indigenous men and because there is a collective history of working for the defence of culture, territory and identity.

Indigenous youth play a fundamental role in this process. They have the strength, energy and capacity to energize people: they can reinforce the path or change it. Today young people study, attend universities, learn other languages and acquire other knowledge but none of this means turning their back on an Indigenous vision. On the contrary, this is an open vision that dialogues with other knowledge without renouncing its own.

That is why I say that I am not here just because I am a woman, not even because I am Indigenous. I am here because there has been a collective political development, a shared construction of thought and action. What really matters is to have an Indigenous vision, a living philosophy, not just external representation. That is one of the greatest challenges we face today.

LG: Colombia will become a member of the United Nations Security Council on 01 January 2026, and you will take up that representation. What is the significance of this moment, not only for your country but also for the Indigenous Peoples of the world?

LZT: Colombia’s election to the Security Council came not of a sudden decision nor was it the result of a single circumstance: it was a process that had been under construction for many years. The fact that this representation can today be held by an Indigenous woman has a profound political meaning, not as a personal achievement or as a symbolic gesture but as a way of making Indigenous Peoples visible in one of the most important spaces of global decision-making. It is to recognize that we have real experience of peace building, an experience that is born not only from agreements but from a way of life which, historically, has sought to resolve conflicts without destroying life.

Colombia has been a resilient country in terms of peace. Despite violence and armed conflict, it has insisted on dialogue as the way forward. Bringing this experience to the Security Council is a great responsibility but it also leaves an important legacy: that the world’s Indigenous Peoples are seen and heard, and that there is recognition that their practices and visions can contribute to global peacebuilding. That, to me, is the deeper meaning of this moment.

The post Peace as a living system: Indigenous perspectives from the voice of Leonor Zalabata Torres appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

The Causes of Displacement: Structural Racism and Threats to Self-Determination

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has consistently highlighted the fact that the current violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights are rooted in profound historical inequalities arising from centuries of colonisation, extermination, forced assimilation, and structural racism. It is within this conceptual framework that the forced displacement of communities from their ancestral territories must be understood as a serious human rights violation.

Communities are compelled to flee due to the severity of violence they endure, stemming from armed conflict, organised crime, and drug trafficking. Increasingly, displacement is also the direct result of global warming and the expansion of large-scale infrastructure and extractive projects. These displacements inevitably lead to a loss of cultural identity and, in some cases, the very disintegration of the community.

Cross-border Indigenous Peoples who are forced to move beyond their ancestral lands often find themselves in an even more precarious situation, as the States involved typically lack adequate protection mechanisms to address these challenges.

The IACHR has documented numerous instances of mass displacement and forced evictions of Indigenous Peoples in contexts of poverty, violence, and criminalisation. Such situations reflect enduring historical structures of oppression that continue to obstruct access to justice and safe return.

The causes and consequences of forced displacement have been extensively examined by the Inter-American Human Rights System through its various mechanisms: including IACHR reports and judgements of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR); precautionary measures by the IACHR and provisional measures by the IACtHR; public hearings; and both working and in loco visits.

Inter-American System Standards on Forced Displacement

The right to self-determination, which precedes the State and underpins the identity of Indigenous Peoples, is manifested, among other ways, through collective ownership of lands, territories, and natural resources. The Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) has affirmed that this right derives from Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), reaffirming Indigenous Peoples’ entitlement to the recognition, delimitation, and demarcation of their traditional lands. Simultaneously, it has been emphasised that insecurity in land tenure exacerbates rights violations and facilitates forced evictions where lands are contested or designated as protected areas.

The vulnerability of Indigenous Peoples is further compounded by their special relationship with the lands from which they have been displaced; in such cases, the protection of collective property rights and the use and enjoyment of their territory are essential to ensuring their survival. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) has also recognised the particular importance of family cohesion within Indigenous communities in its jurisprudence.

Moreover, the Court has highlighted the right of displaced persons to freely return to their place of origin under safe conditions, as well as the obligation of States to ensure that such return is voluntary.

For the Inter-American Human Rights System, the right to self-determination not only encompasses recognition of collective ownership but also includes the right to self-governance of their territories through their own authorities. Forced displacement that disrupts Indigenous authorities interrupts the exercise of a people’s specific project and strikes at the very heart of self-determination.

The rights to prior, free, and informed consultation and consent likewise seek to ensure Indigenous Peoples’ participation in decisions that may affect them. Consultation aims to secure consent through genuine and respectful dialogue. Many communities have developed their own protocols through which to exercise these rights. In the context of business activities, recognising Inter-American standards is crucial, and States have an obligation to guarantee participatory and inclusive processes.

As can be seen, the Inter-American Human Rights System provides a robust legal framework to protect Indigenous Peoples against forced displacement, grounded in a central principle: self-determination. This right ensures their continued presence, participation, and autonomy in their ancestral territories while its violation threatens their collective existence.

The IACHR’s standards and recommendations are unequivocal: forced displacement must be urgently prevented and addressed. Mere formal commitments by States are insufficient; concrete and effective measures are required, for which States may rely on technical assistance, and Indigenous Peoples on the strategic support of the Inter-American Commission.

The Role the IACHR Can Play in Strengthening the Protection of Human Rights in This Context

The forced displacement of Indigenous Peoples calls for intercultural public policies, effective participation, and transformative reparations. States in the region still owe a historical debt to these peoples, one that is exacerbated by structural inequality and demands special measures of protection and prevention.

It is clear that effective implementation of the necessary measures to prevent and redress the forced displacement of Indigenous Peoples requires sustained political will and a genuine commitment to ensuring that Indigenous Peoples actively participate in decisions that affect them. To this end, the Inter-American System must not be seen merely as a legal framework but as a living tool at the service of the peoples in their struggle for resistance, protection, and reparation, and one that can work alongside States to achieve this aim. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has a range of mechanisms that can support Indigenous Peoples in the defence of their rights and assist States in the promotion, design, and implementation of public policies in this area.

For instance, the IACHR produces annual and thematic reports containing assessments and recommendations. In recent years, it has published a number of reports related to the phenomenon of forced displacement and the situation of the rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.

Additionally, the IACHR engages in ongoing monitoring of various human rights situations through requests for information from States, the convening of public hearings, working meetings, working visits, and in loco visits. Press releases and public statements are also issued to draw attention to particular issues of concern.

In addition, the IACHR engages in diplomatic dialogue with States and can provide specialised technical assistance to different public authorities upon request.

Finally, the IACHR has a robust system for petitions, cases, and requests for precautionary measures. In addition to addressing individual situations, these international procedures may include guarantees of non-repetition that help drive institutional reforms aimed at preventing future instances of displacement and strengthening the protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights.

There is no doubt that major challenges remain for States to become more effective in preventing forced displacement and in responding to the need to protect rights during and after such displacement. States are called upon to redouble their efforts in this area—particularly by generating disaggregated data, recognising the special territorial relationship of Indigenous Peoples, and adopting specific measures, including prior consultation and respect for their normative systems, in order to prevent and remedy forced displacement.

The post Forced Displacement of Indigenous Peoples: The Role of the Inter-American Human Rights System appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Esmeralda Arosemena de Troitiño: I would like to begin by highlighting the progress made during these eight years of work. I believe that we have managed to position the Commission on priority issues related to the situation of the most vulnerable sectors of society. Based on the work of the IACHR, the jurisprudence established by the Inter- American Court and the development of the American Convention on Human Rights and its standards, I believe that we have strengthened the Inter-American System. It is crucial to use the tools available to ensure that States comply with their international commitments.

DI: And in the area of Indigenous Peoples?

EAT: Despite the limitations, I believe that we have made progress in clearly identifying the right to ownership of their territories from their own worldview. Although it continues to be a complex issue, this obligation has been discussed among the States. The American Declaration, together with other international instruments, provides us with a solid platform for the protection, guarantees and promotion of respect for Indigenous Peoples. However, there is always a risk of setbacks in the progress achieved and we must be vigilant.

DI: Despite the favorable regulatory framework for Indigenous rights, do you consider that there has been a regression of these rights?

EAT: I would say yes. Within the mandate of the IACHR, the Rapporteurship faces the major challenge of achieving recognition and effective respect for the autonomous decisions of Indigenous Peoples. Although this is recognized in political discourse, even in internal regulations, the transformation of these recognitions is a clear denial of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. In seeking to realize their rights, Indigenous Peoples are faced with a situation of denial, where other interests prevail. In the end, States tend to disassociate development from Indigenous rights. Currently, we are witnessing a frontal struggle between Indigenous Peoples and the States, with cases of criminalization, harassment and deaths of Indigenous leaders. It is a great challenge for the Commission to promote dialogue and to monitor, together with the States, compliance with the norms of the legal instruments, for which they are responsible for their effective enforcement and compliance.

Esmeralda Arosemena de Troitiño in the maximum-security prison of Zacatecoluca (El Salvador) to verify the situation of persons deprived of liberty. Photo: IACHR

Esmeralda Arosemena de Troitiño in the maximum-security prison of Zacatecoluca (El Salvador) to verify the situation of persons deprived of liberty. Photo: IACHR

DI: What is the status of compliance with free, prior and informed consultation?

EAT: The issue of consultation and free, prior and informed consent is fundamental, and several States have completely different conceptions of the meaning and content of this right. As a result, the connection of Indigenous Peoples with their territories is limited in the face of the interests of power groups and the exploitation of resources.

DI: How is the link between States and Indigenous Peoples?

EAT: Rather than ignoring Indigenous rights, States choose not to respect them. That is why the IACHR promotes open, sincere and respectful dialogues between States and Indigenous Peoples. A common problem is that, within some States, there are sectors that make false claims, such as the supposed desire for independence of Indigenous Peoples that would affect State sovereignty. This is absurd and requires an open and respectful dialogue. It is essential that the States fulfill their commitments, and the Commission has tools such as precautionary measures, petitions and cases to support them. The identification of priorities and the development of prioritization criteria are key in this regard. In short, the Commission seeks to pursue a positive agenda with States, firmly identifying the responses they must provide in compliance with their own international norms and obligations. Governments must build on the strengths of their human communities.

DI: What about the power groups outside the State?

EAT: The influence of power groups, such as macro-criminality, which sometimes exceeds the power of the States themselves, only complicates the situation. The militarization of Indigenous territories, the lack of judicial responses to acts of violence against Indigenous leaders, and the need to strengthen democratic institutions and civil society are important challenges.

Esmeralda Arosemena de Troitiño during the Regional Seminar on the Right to Autonomy and Indigenous Justice in Santa Cruz de la Sierra (Bolivia). Photo: IWGIA

Esmeralda Arosemena de Troitiño during the Regional Seminar on the Right to Autonomy and Indigenous Justice in Santa Cruz de la Sierra (Bolivia). Photo: IWGIA

DI: A few weeks before the end of your term, how do you see the future of the Commission?

EAT: It is important that the Commission maintains a sense of institutional cohesion and respect for the institutionality of the IACHR. The members are part of a collective with adopted standards and a clear mission established by the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS). The observance, defense, promotion and advancement of human rights must be the fundamental purpose of the Commission and its members. The development of thematic reports is a line that should be strengthened, since these documents are valuable for the States to understand the lines to develop specific rights. Reports, such as the one on the Right to Self-Determination and the recent one on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Afro- descendants, should be used in dialogues with States to maximize their impact.

DI: What challenges will the Rapporteurship face?

EAT: These eight years have enriched my life in terms of the concept of humanity, the defense and promotion of human rights. The challenge is for Indigenous Peoples to be considered with absolute dignity and integrity of their rights, with a particular focus on non- discrimination for any cause. The focus must be on the most vulnerable sectors, ensuring respect for their dignity and avoiding exclusion, so that the full sense of humanity is preserved.

The post Esmeralda Arosemena de Troitiño: ‘It is crucial to use the tools available to ensure that States comply with their international commitments’ appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Lola García-Alix: The establishment of the Permanent Forum was a milestone in the Indigenous Peoples’ struggle for recognition within the international system and, particularly, within the UN. Indigenous Peoples demanded the creation of a mechanism at the highest possible level within the UN system, where their right to participate would be fully recognized, not just as mere observers. It was a revolutionary moment within the UN because there were no mechanisms with a gender-balanced composition, as Indigenous Peoples demanded. Eventually, a model with 16 members was adopted: eight experts nominated by indigenous organizations and eight experts appointed by states. The nomination of indigenous experts recognizes the self-determination processes of Indigenous Peoples.

DI: Did that initial objective get fulfilled?

LGA: Over the years, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has truly established itself as a platform by and for the defense and protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. It is no longer just an official session but has also become a global gathering and dialogue platform for Indigenous Peoples with United Nations agencies, state representatives, NGOs, academics, and those working on the issue. Additionally, it is the largest meeting on all matters related to Indigenous Peoples within the UN: this year alone, over 2,000 people were registered. The Permanent Forum has managed to solidify itself and gain legitimacy within the Indigenous Peoples movement. I believe that the lack of knowledge and information about the situation of Indigenous Peoples would be catastrophic without mechanisms like the Permanent Forum.

DI: What happens with the implementation of the recommendations?

LGA: That’s the big challenge. The implementation gap is one of the main problems across all United Nations bodies. There is a difference between multilateral dialogue, political dialogue among states, agreements, commitments, and good intentions, and the reality on the ground for Indigenous Peoples. In most cases, implementation depends on the political will of states. As an advisory body, the Permanent Forum can only make recommendations through the United Nations Economic and Social Council. While it is a significant challenge to make real progress in the implementation of recommendations, it is important to highlight that they are useful as an instrument for Indigenous Peoples in their struggles for the respect and protection of their rights on the ground and in their political dialogue with states.

Martin Hermann, Ambassador of Denmark to the UN, Lola García-Alix; the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Francisco Cali Tzay, and Kathrin Wessendorf, Director of IWGIA, during the presentation of Indigenous World 2023.

Martin Hermann, Ambassador of Denmark to the UN, Lola García-Alix; the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Francisco Cali Tzay, and Kathrin Wessendorf, Director of IWGIA, during the presentation of Indigenous World 2023.

DI: Isn’t there an overlap between the Permanent Forum and the work of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

LGA: The mandates of these three mechanisms are undoubtedly very important, and there is good cooperation and complementarity in the work they carry out. I believe they have very specific mandates. The Permanent Forum has a broader mandate focused on ensuring that United Nations System including its agencies and funds, develop and implement programs and policies in accordance with the rights established in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007. On the other hand, the Special Rapporteur is more oriented towards documenting and monitoring the human rights situation of Indigenous Peoples. They can conduct country visits, engage in specific cases, send communications to states, and request responses regarding certain issues. Finally, the Expert Mechanism is an advisory body to the Human Rights Council and conducts thematic studies. It also provides technical advice on the implementation of specific rights if requested by states.

DI: How do these mechanisms collaborate during the sessions of the Permanent Forum?

LGA: During the sessions of the Permanent Forum, the Special Rapporteur and, at a minimum, the Chair of the Expert Mechanism participate. They present their work during the session and also make recommendations to the Forum, States and Indigenous Peoples. In return, the Special Rapporteur and the Chair of the Permanent Forum also participate in the annual meeting of the Expert Mechanism held in Geneva. In conclusion, efforts are made to ensure institutional synergy among the work of the three mechanisms, although it is sometimes challenging within the compartmentalized system of the United Nations.

In this edition of the Permanent Forum, more than 2000 people were registered. Photo: IWGIA

In this edition of the Permanent Forum, more than 2000 people were registered. Photo: IWGIA

DI: What topics were discussed during the 22nd Session of the Permanent Forum held from April 17 to 28 in New York?

LGA: First and foremost, I think it’s important to note that the 2023 session was the first fully in- person session in three years due to the pandemic. In 2022, it was a hybrid session as there were still many restrictions related to vaccination, and on-site participation was very limited. This year, the session opened at a very high level with speeches from the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres; the President of Colombia, Gustavo Petro; the Secretary of the Interior of the United States, Debra Haaland (a Native American), and other high-ranking UN officials.

DI: Why was the theme “Indigenous Peoples, Human Health, Planetary Health, and Territory and Climate Change: A Rights-Based Approach” chosen?

LGA: The selection of session themes is decided by the Permanent Forum based on proposals submitted by indigenous representatives during the session’s agenda item on its future work. The message from Indigenous Peoples is that they cannot separate human health from planetary health or the health of their territories. Indigenous Peoples reflected very well the importance and the need for the health issue to be viewed in a holistic and intercultural way. In other words, one cannot talk about indigenous health or the health of Indigenous Peoples without addressing their issues, the lack of recognition of their territories, and the need for the recognition of their right to self-determination. The report of this session clearly reflects the message of Indigenous Peoples and serves as a monitoring tool.

DI: Was there an assessment of the pandemic?

LGA: Although the impact of the pandemic on Indigenous Peoples was one of the central topics last year, it had less prominence this year. However, the impact of COVID-19 has become an indicator of how a crisis of this magnitude affects Indigenous Peoples and exacerbates the problems they face daily due to lack of recognition, discrimination, marginalization, and their lack of participation in decision-making processes on issues that directly affect them. At the same time, the importance of indigenous governance has been recognized. The higher the level of recognition of indigenous governance systems, the greater the resilience of Indigenous Peoples to the impact of the pandemic.

The participation of Indigenous Women has increased through their organizations and networks in international processes. Photo: Lola García-Alix

The participation of Indigenous Women has increased through their organizations and networks in international processes. Photo: Lola García-Alix

DI: What is the conclusion regarding the human rights situation of Indigenous Peoples?

LGA: The worsening of the human rights situation of Indigenous Peoples in many countries, especially in non-democratic governments, is of great concern. Conflicts over land, territories, and resources have intensified, and there has been an increase in the criminalization and killings of indigenous rights defenders. We are also witnessing a rise in intimidation attempts and even reprisals by some states against indigenous representatives participating in international meetings, including the sessions of the Forum, despite the UN Secretary-General establishing a specific mechanism to protect individuals or groups cooperating or engaging with the UN and its human rights mechanisms. This trend is undoubtedly discouraging. On one hand, we hear progressive, positive speeches recognizing the rights of Indigenous Peoples from many states, but on the other hand, the violation of their rights continues to increase in many countries. During this year’s Permanent Forum session, the interventions made by indigenous representatives clearly reflected that in most countries around the world, their rights continue to be abused, ignored, or systematically violated.

DI: Was it also an important session for indigenous women?

LGA: This year was particularly significant because the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) adopted an excellent general recommendation a few months ago: General Recommendation No. 39 on the rights of indigenous women and girls. States that have ratified this UN convention, which is the majority, have an obligation to implement it and include information about the implementation of Indigenous Women’s rights in their reports to the CEDAW Committee. Therefore, the Permanent Forum decided to pay special attention to monitoring its implementation by states. Various events were organized during the Forum session to highlight the importance of this recommendation and the need to promote its implementation. It is also important to note that the participation of indigenous women through their organizations and networks in international processes has increased, as well as that of young people who are very active in the Forum sessions. Through the Global Indigenous Youth Caucus, they present statements during the discussion of various agenda items and organize events specifically to discuss the concerns and issues of indigenous youth.

DI: As a parallel event to the Permanent Forum, the presentation of The Indigenous World 2023 took place, with conservation as its central theme. What was the assessment in this regard?

LGA: The issue of conservation is of utmost importance to Indigenous Peoples because, in the name of conservation, they have been dispossessed of their lands and livelihoods, systematically violating all their rights as recognized in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly their rights to land, territory, and natural resources. Indigenous Peoples have demonstrated their role as custodians and conservationists of nature; it is documented that their territories possess the highest biodiversity in the world. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that any conservation policy, program, or decision recognizes, respects, and ensures the full respect of the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their lands, territories, and natural resources.

The post “The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is an institutional platform by and for Indigenous Peoples” appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Antonia Urrejola: We are indeed living in a time in which there is more discussion than ever before about how international bodies come to tell States what to do. It’s a debate that has always existed, but now it has taken on greater force. Beyond the respective political inclinations of each government, there is a tendency to question human rights bodies in particular, putting forward a discourse of national sovereignty and of non-interference on a domestic level. The issue is particularly complicated in highly polarised countries. When the IACHR denounces a human rights violation in a given country, that denunciation is against the State, which has the obligation to prevent, investigate and punish such violations. Unfortunately, in the current context of polarization present in various countries in the region, our declarations, even when they are in accordance with our mandate and independent of the government in power, are often used in internal debate, depending on the political situation at the time.

On the other hand, we must always remember that multilateral organisations such as the OAS or the UN are made up of states and are therefore not supranatural but instead intergovernmental bodies. The OAS is no more than what its states want it to be. They determine the organisation’s policies and priorities. However, it should be noted that the Commission, although part of the OAS, functions as an autonomous body. The seven commissioners who make up the Commission were elected by the OAS Assembly, but we have full autonomy and we do not answer to any State and in turn, our decisions reflect that autonomy.

Urrejola with women from the Qhara Qhara Nation. Photo: IACHR

DI: What is the main strength of the work the commission does?

AU: Our strength lies in our permanent monitoring of the human rights situation throughout the continent, in making serious violations of rights visible to the international community and especially in our recommendations and declarations to the States to make progress in preventing human rights violations or, if they occur, in investigating them and ensuring those responsible are held accountable. But the strength of our recommendations depends very much on the States’ political will to comply with them. The same applies to the judgments of the Inter-American Court or the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. But again, I insist that, beyond the strength of our declarations, implementation depends on the political will of the States concerned by these declarations. But as we find ourselves within a context where several States are questioning multilateral bodies, the political will tends to be diluted. An important part of our mandate is to monitor the human rights situation and to denounce human rights violations committed by States and this is obviously always cause for tensions. In the past, States resolved these tensions privately and diplomatically. Today, to the extent of multilateral bodies being questioned, these tensions and questionings are often made public and that does little to help resolve human rights issues, but instead often generates even more tension.

DI: The political cost of States ignoring the Commission does not seem very high…

AU: I feel like in the past, those in power felt that there was a political cost, a kind of moral damage, if they were to publicly oppose themselves to the commission. Today, this is no longer the case and often this cost is insignificant. Criticism of the decisions or reports of the IACHR or the Court, questioning our mandate or objectivity by some States, sometimes by the presidents of the republic themselves, tells us that in many cases there is no cost whatsoever to questioning the Inter-American System or the work of human rights protection bodies in general. On the contrary, sometimes these questionings – that we are intervening in internal affairs or that we are politicized and biased – are made for reasons of internal policy, and this not only weakens the work of the human rights bodies, I insist, but the very defence of human rights as such. That is what worries me.

DI: How do victims react to the system’s slow pace or ineffectiveness?

AU: Many human rights organisations feel frustrated about the fact that we seem to be able to do no more than denounce, time and again, the same human rights violations. And they demand we do more. The court, for its part, issues judgements determining responsibility for human rights violations, establishing recommendations to states and following up on compliance with the judgments. But it can’t force states to comply with the judgments either. The strength of the ISHR lies in its declarations and judgments. States, by virtue of their own sovereignty, submit to the system and, by virtue of the principle of good faith, must comply with the recommendations. And when serious violations of human rights occur, people rightly think that the system is insufficient.

Urrejola in Santo Domingo during the 168^th period of the IACHR in 2018. Photo: IACHR

DI: How do you view the efficiency of the human rights system?

AU: In my opinion, both the United Nations system and the Inter-American System continue to be effective and play a key role. Firstly, by making cases of human rights violations visible. Because it has an effect, not only before the international community, but also internally. And, above all, I believe that it is a way to support the victims. On many occasions, the victims have expressed to us their interest in having their voice heard on the outside and the importance of feeling accompanied. At the end of the day, it is also a protective measure. Despite the weaknesses of the system, it is important for an international body to publicly point out when human rights are being violated. Or that precautionary measures are provided for a given person or group, since in some way there is a kind of inhibition on the part of states or state-owned agents. I believe that this continues to be very important in the region and in the context we find ourselves in. On the other hand, through the recommendations and judgments of the system’s bodies, human rights standards and principles are being established, which are permeating the spheres of public bodies and public policies, even if the immediate effect is not seen.

DI: And what is the effectiveness in countries with authoritarian governments that do not want to comply with the rulings?

AU: In authoritarian countries, where there is no division of power and impunity reigns, the commission fulfils its role of documenting human rights violations. Alongside the accompaniment of the victims, this documentation is very important for when processes are successfully initiated, such as in transitional justice, where human rights violations can be investigated and sanctioned. Therefore, this task of identifying and making visible – even if it’s not with immediate effect – plays a fundamental role.

DI: How does the Commission work in the countries where you are Rapporteur, such as Colombia, Ecuador and Nicaragua?

AU: The Commission is concerned about the escalating violence in Colombia. After a brief period of calm following the Peace Agreement, the various armed groups have now regrouped. At a meeting of indigenous women in Medellin, we were informed that after the Peace Agreement, the armed groups were not eliminated, but instead the actors changed. One leader told us they had previously managed to exist with the FARC, because although they had serious conflicts with them, they knew who was who and where not to go. There was a kind of pact of coexistence. But with the Peace Agreement, new, unknown armed groups appeared, putting pressure on their territories. These were FARC dissidents, paramilitaries and groups linked to drug trafficking and with their arrival, the violence intensified. For the indigenous peoples, the map of actors changed completely and, therefore, so did their methods of defence. Regardless of what the indigenous organizations think, I don’t think the state has quite understood the map of the new actors either. What is happening in Colombia is very complex and very tragic, following the hopes that were generated by the signing of the Peace Agreement. Despite the fact that we have had differences with the current government, I have to admit that from the IACHR we have managed to achieve a dialogue and advance in the implementation of precautionary measures, friendly settlement agreements. The same goes for Ecuador. At the end of the day, both States provide us with information and their various authorities participate in the working meetings and hearings. Dialogue is possible, beyond the differences and tensions that logically exist in some situations.

In 2019, Urrejola led a visit to the headquarters of the Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador (CONAIE) to hear testimonies on the violation of human rights. Photo: IACHR

DI: And what about Nicaragua?

AU: Unfortunately we have no dialogue with the Nicaraguan state. We maintain a monitoring mechanism, although we have no real influence on the state itself. But for the organizations, the work of the Commission continues to be fundamental in making human rights violations visible because, when in a way, the world has forgotten about Nicaragua. The State is not present at the working meetings or public hearings of the IACHR: during my three-year term as Rapporteur for Nicaragua, they participated in only one meeting to discuss the prior consultation with the Miskito people of the Atlantic Coast. And lately they have not responded to our requests for information either. I find it unfortunate that they accuse us of having a biased position. At the end of the day, if the state refuses to give us its own view of the facts, they cannot accuse us of not being impartial when they don’t provide us with information.

DI: As Rapporteur for indigenous peoples, have you seen any significant changes in the use of the Inter-American System by indigenous organizations?

AU: The indigenous issue has always been present in the Commission. In fact, the Rapporteurship has been working since the 1990s and we have several thematic reports and cases that have reached the courts. I believe that the Interamerican System has made a great contribution in the area of indigenous rights. What has changed is related to the evolution of the indigenous organizations themselves, which is evident in the indigenous representation before the Commission. The organisations have become much more familiar with the system. And it has been very important for the Commissioners and officials of the Commission to have direct contact with the indigenous representatives. One of our priorities has been to provide indigenous organisations with direct training on the Interamerican System so that they can use it themselves. Without devaluing the role of the institutions supporting the indigenous movement, it has been important for us to have direct contact with indigenous communities and organisations.

DI: Has Covid-19 made this interaction more difficult?

AU: Paradoxically, in this time of pandemic and digital divide, thanks to Zoom, I have had even more contact with the representatives of the indigenous territories. Before, due to time constraints, during my country visits, we did not move far from the big cities, except for the in loco visits. Both for the organisations and for the Commission, this increase in direct dialogue has been a learning experience and we have been able to give more content to the perspective of the indigenous peoples themselves, without intermediaries, regarding the human rights situations that afflict them, their priorities and their proposals for tackling the challenges they face.

DI: However, the Inter-American Court has issued a number of important rulings in favour of indigenous peoples who do not comply…

AU: I fully understand the frustration of the organizations in terms of the effectiveness of the system. But I would like to highlight two issues. On the one hand, the effect of the judgement on each individual case. And the second is the importance of the judgement in the evolution of human rights standards. Judgements have a multiplying effect on all states, on public policies, on legislation and on the awareness of complying with the standards that these judgements set out. The court’s rulings are interpretive of the Inter- American Convention and the inter-American standards are developed through the judgements. Likewise, the judgements permeate the public policies of the states. The latest judgement of Lhaka Honat vs. the Argentine state argues for the right of indigenous communities to adequate food and water. It is true that the effects of these judgements take years, but the ruling is remarkable and shows the importance of the system and its evolution.

Urrejola is also the Rapporteur for Truth and Justice and Rapporteur for Nicaragua, Colombia, Ecuador and Guyana. Photo: IACHR

DI: This frustration is also associated with the setback of many rights.

AU: That is true and I am concerned about these setbacks. In public discourse, there are elected authorities in several countries in the region who are re-justifying human rights violations, torture or justifying the disproportionate use of force by police in demonstrations. Security forces are once again using repressive force that had been unheard of on the continent. The problem is that the excessive use of force is beginning to be justified by society and we are returning to an attitude of “them” and “us”. Therefore, I believe there are setbacks that go beyond the discourse of some authorities, who undoubtedly bear much of the responsibility for this, there is also a setback in the civic debate. On the one hand, we are making great progress in human rights standards and raising awareness, but on the other hand, we are seeing that human rights violations such as extrajudicial executions or torture are once again being accepted or justified. It took us many years for clear standards to exist on issues related to crimes against humanity, for example, torture, and now we see how many sectors of our societies are once again justifying some of these violations.

DI: In the face of these setbacks, where does your hope lie?

AU: I’d like to reiterate that I understand the frustration of people who need solutions in the face of displacement, threats and killings. And unfortunately, often the people who fought for these sentences don’t get to see the impact they have made. But beyond that, the Commission’s recommendations and the Court’s rulings are generating a kind of “inter-American awareness” regarding human rights. And that is very positive from the point of view of respect for human rights in the region.

My hope lies with the victims and their families. On every trip I have had to make as Commissioner, I have heard heart-breaking stories from victims and their families throughout our continent. There is something of great importance that I always carry with me, which is a role that is not in the convention, nor in the OAS charter, nor in the IACHR regulations or statute. Nor is it in the doctrinal analyses of inter-American jurisprudence or the impact of the system. It is in fact, the reparative role that the IACHR has, simply by being a space where the victims are being listened to. It is impossible to build a democratic country without the victims being given a space to tell their stories. And I think that often, the IACHR succeeds in providing that space. At the end of the day, to be able to lend an ear to the silences that want to be heard, is without a doubt one of the IACHR’s greatest contributions and impacts and one of which I am very proud to be a part of.

I always remember my teacher and great human rights defender, who recently passed away this year, José Zalaquett, who said: “If you are thinking of establishing a link between the actions we develop and concrete changes, you are in the wrong business. In human rights, you shoot an arrow and you don’t know where it will land. Success is measured by the number of arrows you shoot”. To a certain extent, that is our job.

The post Antonia Urrejola: “Our job is to denounce human rights violations committed by the States and this obviously causes tensions” appeared first on Debates Indígenas.