Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T12:43:52.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating Business and Human Rights in the Inter-American Human Rights System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2016

Alejandra GONZA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

indigenous rightsInter-American Commission of Human RightsInter-American Court of Human RightsOrganization of American States
Type
Developments in the Field
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , July 2016 , pp. 357 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Alejandra Gonza directs the International Human Rights Clinic (Business and Human Rights), at the University of Washington School of Law, Clinical Law Program.

References

2 Salazar, Katya, ‘Business and Human Rights. A new challenge for the OAS?’, Blog de la Fundación para el Debido Proceso Legal (14 October 2015)Google Scholar, http://dplfblog.com/2015/10/14/business-and-human-rights-a-new-challenge-for-the-oas/ (accessed 22 March 2016).

3 Ximenes-Lopes v Brazil, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. No. 149 (2006), 141, regarding private health care facilities; and Gonzales Lluy et al. v Ecuador, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. No. 298 (2015), regarding the Red Cross as ‘private entity’. See also Cecilia Anicama, ‘State Responsibilities to Regulate and Adjudicate Corporate Activities under the Inter-American Human Rights System’. ‘Report on the American Convention on Human Rights to inform the mandate of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General (SRSG) on Business and Human Rights’, (April 2008).

4 Due Process of Law Foundation, ‘The impact of Canadian mining in Latin America and Canada’s responsibility’, (May 2014), (only in Spanish), http://dplf.org/en/resources-topics/human-rights-extractive-industries (accessed 6 February 2016).

5 OAS General Assembly, ‘Promotion and protection of human rights in business’, AG/RES. 2840 (XLIV-O/14) (4 June 2014), http://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/docs/AG-RES_2840_XLIV-O-14.pdf (accessed 6 February 2016).

6 Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Suriname, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. No. 309, (2015), 224.

7 Ximenes-Lopes v Brazil, note 3, 87; and Gonzales Lluy et al. v Ecuador, note 3. See also, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Community (Belize), ICHR (2004), 136–156.

8 In the paramilitary context, see Mapiripán Massacre v Colombia, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. No. 134 (2005), 162.

9 Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. No. 18 (2003), 140, Drittwirkung theory.

10 Cerqueira, Daniel, ‘The Attribution of Extraterritorial Liability for the Acts of Private Parties in the Inter-American System: Contributions to the Debate on Corporations and Human Rights’, 20 Aportes DPLF, Magazine, August 2015, 20 Google Scholar.

11 See also, Cecilia Anicama, note 3.

12 Press Release, ‘IACHR to Create an Office of the Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights’ (3 April 2014), http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2014/034.asp (accessed 22 March 2016).

13 Promotion and protection of human rights in business, OAS, (4 June 2014), AG/RES. 2840 (XLIV-O/14), http://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/docs/AG-RES_2840_XLIV-O-14.pdf (accessed 6 February 2016).

14 Ibid.

15 Coloquio en la OEA sobre Derechos Humanos y Empresas, (29 June 2015), http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/desc/actividades/ (accessed 6 February 2016).

16 Memorandum of understanding between the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States through the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and the Danish Institute for Human Rights, (16 March 2015), http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/mandato/docs/IACHR-DIHR-2015.pdf (accessed 6 February 2016).

17 Quick, Paloma Muñoz, ‘The State of Business & Human Rights at the Organization of Americas States, bhramericas blog (23 August 2015), https://bhramericasblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/the-state-of-business-human-rights-at-the-organization-of-americas-states/ Google Scholar (accessed 6 February 2016).

18 Thematic hearings of IACHR, ‘Situation of Indigenous Peoples with regard to Extractive Industries’ (2004); ‘Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Energy and Extractive Industry Policy in Peru’ (2010); ‘Human Rights Situation of Persons Affected by the Extractive Industries in the Americas’ (2012); ‘Situation of Persons Recruited for Extraction of Rubber (soldados da borracha) in Brazil’ (2013).

19 Thematic hearing, IACHR, 149th session (2013).

20 Ibid, words from Rose-Marie Antoine, minute 42.

21 Charter of the Organization of American States, UN Doc 1607, 119 UNTS 3 (adopted 30 April 1848, entered into force 13 December 1951), art 36.

22 Video of thematic hearing, ‘Human Rights Situation of People Affected by Mining in the Americas and Responsibilities of the Host and Home States of the Mining Companies’, ICHR, minutes 36–8, (November 2013), http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/audiencias/default.aspx?lang=en (accessed 6 February 2016).

23 Thematic hearing, ‘Impact of Canadian Mining Activities on Human Rights in Latin America’, (October 2014), IACHR.

24 Ibid, video minutes 48–9, 54–6.

25 Presentation, ‘Extraterritoriality and Responsibility of Home States in the Protection of Human Rights for the Activities of Extractive Industries in Latin America’, Human Rights Research and Education Centre, University of Ottawa (2015).

26 Thematic hearings, ‘Business, Human Rights, and Prior Consultation in the Americas’, ICHR, 154th session, (2015); ‘Human Rights and Extractive Industries in Latin America’, ICHR, 154th session, (2015).

27 Public Hearing ‘Business, human rights and prior consultation in the Americas’, (March 2015), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGvASYx_j5c (accessed 6 February 2016).

28 Indigenous communities of Cuenca del Río Xingu, Pará, Brazil, ICHR, PM 382-10 (2010).

29 Comunidades del Pueblo Maya (Sipakapense y Mam), Guatemala, ICHR, PM 260-07 (2007).

30 E.g., Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni, Nicaragua, ICHR, PM (1997). On 31 October 1997, the Commission requested that the state adopt whatever precautionary measures were required to suspend the concession granted to SOLCARSA.

31 There is a pending request to halt the transoceanic Nicaraguan Canal project that will cause the displacement of thousands.

32 Gonza, Alejandra, ‘ Derecho a la propiedad privada ’ in Christian Steiner and Patricia Uribe (eds.) Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos (Sankt Augustin: Konrad Adenauer Siftung, 2014), 524 Google Scholar; and Matter of Four Ngöbe Indigenous Communities and its members regarding Panama, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (2010).

33 Matter of Pueblo Indígena Kankuamo, Colombia, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (2004), protecting freedom of movement; and Matter of Comunidades del Jiguamiandó y del Curbaradó, Colombia, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (2003); Matter of Pueblo indígena de Sarayaku regarding Ecuador, Ecuador, Inter-Am. Ct. (2004), protecting freedom of movement, and in 2005 protecting the use of natural resources in their territories by removing explosives from ancestral lands.

34 Matter of Four Ngöbe Indigenous Communities and its members regarding Panama, note 32; corporation AES Changuinola.

35 Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador, Inter.-Am. Ct. H.R. No. 245 (2012).

36 Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingi Community v Nicaragua, note 30, para 104f.

37 Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Suriname, note 6; Saramaka People v Suriname, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. No. 172 (2007).

38 Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v Paraguay, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. No. 125 (2005); Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v Paraguay, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. No. 146 (2006); and Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v Paraguay, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. No. 214 (2010).

39 Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingi Community v Nicaragua, note 30; Saramaka People v Suriname, note 37; Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador, note 35; Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Suriname, note 6. For further analysis of this case law, see Antkowiak, Thomas M, ‘Rights, Resources, and Rhetoric: Indigenous Peoples and the Inter-American Court’, 35 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 113 (2013)Google Scholar.

40 For a full description of indigenous people remedies see Antkowiak, Thomas M, ‘A Dark Side of Virtue: The Inter-American Court and Reparations for Indigenous Peoples’ (2015) 25 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 1 Google Scholar, 2014.

41 Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador, note 35: the Court stated ‘this measure of reparation is an obligation of the State’, 295.

42 Ibid, 54: It only granted US$90,000 for compensation for material damages in cases of environmental disaster and a fund of US$1,500,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

43 Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Suriname, note 6, 287.

44 Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador, note 35, 299.

45 Ibid, 101, 105: loading indigenous territories with explosives, destroying caves, water sources and underground rivers, cutting down plants of environmental and cultural value, used for subsistence food by the Sarayaku. Also considered proven ‘that the oil company’s activities led to the sporadic suspension of the Sarayaku People’s ancestral cultural rites and ceremonies’ and access to ‘sacred sites’, 73 and 74. The Court described several corporations’ questionable conduct, directed to obtain consent by questionable means.

46 Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador, note 35, 63–72: ‘Partnership contract with the CGC for exploration of hydrocarbons and exploitation of crude oil in Block 23 of the Amazonian Region’. The contract was between State Oil Company of Ecuador (PETROECUADOR) and the consortium formed by the Compañía General de Combustibles S.A. (CGC) and Petrolera Argentina San Jorge S.A (later Chevron-Burlington). Initially four years for exploration, with a possible two years’ extension, and 20 years of exploitation.

47 Ibid, 76.

48 Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingi Community v Nicaragua, note 30, complying with the ICHR recommendations, in 1998 Nicaragua suspended the logging concession to SOLCARSA (30 years to utilize the forest area), 104f.

49 Matter of Pueblo indígena de Sarayaku regarding Ecuador, Ecuador, Inter-Am. Ct. (2004) protecting freedom of movement and in 2005 protecting the use of natural resources in their territories by removing explosives from ancestral lands.

50 Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador, note 35, 123

51 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples, Anaya, James, ‘Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples, Human Rights Council’, 48, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/24/41 (1 July 2013)Google Scholar.

52 Nadege Dorzema et al. v Dominican Republic, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. No. 251 (2012), 78; and Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v Venezuela, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. No. 281 (2014), 124.

53 1 Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Suriname, note 6, 224.

54 Ibid, note 6, 190.

55 The Court rarely ordered states to investigate and has only done so when findings are linked to the violation of the right to personal integrity and right to life: Community Garifuna Triunfo de la Cruz & its members v Honduras, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. No. 305 (2015) (only in Spanish), 267.