Kaliña and Lokono Peoples V. Suriname
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF THE KALIÑA AND LOKONO PEOPLES V. SURINAME JUDGMENT OF NOVEMBER 25, 2015 (Merits, Reparations and Costs) In the case of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”), composed of the following judges: Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, President Roberto F. Caldas, Vice President Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge Diego García-Sayán, Judge Alberto Pérez Pérez, Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Judge, and Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, Judge; also present, Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, and Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary, pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and Articles 31, 32, 65 and 67 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), delivers this Judgment, structured as follows: CASE OF THE KALIÑA AND LOKONO PEOPLES v. SURINAME TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE .............................................. 4 II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT ....................................................................................... 7 III JURISDICTION .................................................................................................................. 10 IV EVIDENCE ........................................................................................................................... 10 A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence .................................................................... 10 B. Admission of the evidence ................................................................................................. 11 B.1 Admission of the documentary evidence ........................................................................... 11 B.2 Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence .............................................................. 12 C. Assessment of the evidence .............................................................................................. 12 V FACTS .................................................................................................................................. 13 A. The Kaliña and Lokono peoples .......................................................................................... 13 B. Maroon settlements in the territory claimed as ancestral by the Kaliña and Lokono peoples ....... 16 C. The indigenous peoples under the Suriname legal system ..................................................... 18 D. The steps taken by the indigenous peoples to obtain recognition of their rights ........................ 19 D.1 Steps taken prior to the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction (November 12, 1987) ............. 19 D.2 Steps taken following the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction (November 12, 1987) ........... 20 E. Creation of the nature reserves ......................................................................................... 21 E.1 The Wia Wia and Galibi Nature Reserves ........................................................................... 22 E.2 The Wane Kreek Nature Reserve ...................................................................................... 23 E.2.1 Consultation process ................................................................................................ 24 E.2.2 Bauxite mining activities ........................................................................................... 25 E.2.3 Other natural resource extraction activities ................................................................. 27 F. The urban subdivision project called "Tuinstad Albina" (“Garden City Albina”) .......................... 27 VI MERITS ............................................................................................................................... 28 VI-I RIGHT TO RECOGNITION OF JURIDICAL PERSONALITY (ARTICLE 3) IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1), 2, 21 AND 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ............ 28 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties ................................................................. 28 B. Considerations of the Court ............................................................................................... 29 VI-II RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE PROPERTY (ARTICLE 21) AND POLITICAL RIGHTS (ARTICLE 23) IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ............................ 31 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties ................................................................. 31 B. Considerations of the Court ............................................................................................... 34 B.1 Interpretation of the right to collective property and participation in public affairs of the indigenous peoples in this case.............................................................................................. 34 B.2 The failure to recognize the right to collective property of the Kaliña and Lokono indigenous peoples .............................................................................................................................. 36 B.2.1 The right to collective ownership and the obligation to delimit, demarcate, grant title to, and ensure the use and enjoyment of the collective territory ................................................. 36 B.2.1.1 The failure to delimit, demarcate and grant title in this case ................................... 37 B.2.2 The right to request the restitution of the territory, because individual titles have been granted to non-indigenous and non-tribal third parties ......................................................... 39 B.3 Nature reserves in the traditional territory ........................................................................ 44 B.3.1 The alleged persistence of the nature reserve and the claims ........................................ 44 B.3.2 Alleged restrictions for the indigenous peoples in the nature reserves ............................ 45 B.3.2.1 Compatibility of the rights of the indigenous peoples and the protection of the environment ................................................................................................................ 45 B.3.2.2 The alleged impact in the Galibi and Wane Kreek Nature Reserves .......................... 49 B.4 The right to collective property in relation to the mining concession within the Wane Kreek Nature Reserve ................................................................................................................... 53 VI-III RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION (ARTICLE 25) IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 13, 1(1) AND 2 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ............................................................................... 61 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties ................................................................. 61 B. Considerations of the Court ............................................................................................... 62 2 B.1 Appropriate and effective remedies in domestic law to protect the rights of the indigenous and tribal peoples ...................................................................................................................... 63 B.2 Appropriateness and effectiveness of the judicial proceedings and petitions filed before State authorities .......................................................................................................................... 66 B.3 The right of access to information in relation to Article 25 of the American Convention ........... 67 C. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 69 VII REPARATIONS ................................................................................................................... 70 A. Injured party ................................................................................................................... 70 B. Restitution ...................................................................................................................... 71 C. Rehabilitation of the territory ............................................................................................. 74 D. Creation of a community development fund ........................................................................ 75 E. Guarantees of non-repetition ............................................................................................. 76 E.1 Measures for the recognition of juridical personality, and guarantees of collective property, participation, and access to justice......................................................................................... 77 E.2 Training measures .......................................................................................................... 79 F. Satisfaction ..................................................................................................................... 79 F.1 Publication and broadcast of the Judgment ........................................................................ 79 F.2 Another measure that was requested: public act to acknowledge the State’s responsibility ...... 80 G. Costs and expenses .......................................................................................................... 80 H. Method of complying with the payments ordered ................................................................