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.

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.

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.