II Inter-American System
| Published date | 01 March 2005 |
| Date | 01 March 2005 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/016934410502300106 |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
II INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM
DIEGO RODRI
´GUEZ-PINZO
´N
1. INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
The individual complaint procedure of the Inter-American System is currently
experiencing a profound transformation due to recent changes in the Rules of
Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR or
Commission) and the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (Court). Article 44 of
the New Rules of the IACHR, which indicates that all cases decided by the
Commission under the American Convention on Human Rights will be submitted to
the Inter-American Court on Human Rights,
1
has significantly modified the type of
case law of the Commission as well as its role within the individual complaint
structure of the Inter-American System.
One of the most noticeable changes is related with its standard setting function,
which the Commission has exercises mainly in cases brought under the American
Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.
2
However, it is possible to find
admissibility cases in which important substantive standards may be developed.
Below we are including a summary of the relevant parts of a recent decision in the
merits under the American Declaration against Belize, of a decision in the merits
against Jamaica still under the American Convention,
3
and we are also including one
admissibility decision that has standard setting characteristics regarding freedom of
expression.
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 23/1 (2005) 109
1
Article 44 states: Referral of the Case to the Court: 1. If the State in question has accepted the
jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court in accordance with Article 62 of the American Convention,
and the Commission considers that the State has not complied with the recommendations of the
report approved in accordance with Article 50 of the American Convention, it shall refer the case to
the Court, unless there is a reasoned decision by an absolute majority of the members of the
Commission to the contrary. 2. The Commission shall give fundamental consideration to obtaining
justice in the particular case, based, among others, on the following factors: a) the position of the
petitioner; b) the nature and seriousness of the violation; c) the need to develop or clarify the case-
law of the system; d) the future effect of the decision within the legal systems of the Member States;
and, e) the quality of the evidence available.
2
The Commission receives complaints under the Declaration against those States that have not yet
ratified the American Convention on Human Rights. In these cases, the final decision in the merits
is taken by the Commission, because the Court is only available to States that have ratified the
Convention and accepted its contentious jurisdiction.
3
Jamaica ratified the American Convention but has only accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the
Court for inter-State applications. Therefore, the Commission cannot submit to the Court cases
against Jamaica, so the proceedings end in the Commission’s final decision in the merits.
110
Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District of Belize, Case 12.053, Report
No. 40/04, Merits, 12 October 2004
Facts/Background
Environmental Damage
In this case the petitioners claim that the State has violated Articles I, II, III, VI, XI,
XVIII, XX, XXIII in respect to lands traditionally used and occupied by the Maya
people by granting logging and oil concessions in and otherwise failing to protect
those lands, failing to recognise and secure the territorial rights of the Maya people
in those lands, failing to afford the Maya people judicial protection of their rights
and interests in those lands due to delays in court proceedings instituted by them.
The Maya people have formed organised societies that inhabited the Toledo
District of southern Belize and the surrounding region long before any Europeans
and its colonial institutions arrived which eventually created the modern State of
Belize. There exist distinct linguistic subgroups and communities among these Maya
people that have evolved within a system of interrelationships and cultural
affiliations. The land use practices of the Maya people are comprised of both
subsistence and cultural elements that form a foundation for the life and continuity
of the Maya communities. The Maya use land and streams surrounding the Maya
villages for dwelling and subsistence purposes as well as agriculture, hunting,
fishing, gathering and transportation activities. Numerous sites throughout the
agricultural area and the more remote forested lands are also regarded as sacred and
used for ceremonial purposes and burial grounds. The Mayas claim that there are
three principal zones surrounding the Maya villages: the ‘village zone’ that typically
extends to two square kilometres and is used for dwellings, raising fruit and other
trees and grazing livestock; the ‘agriculture zone’ extending up to 10 kilometres
from the village centre where crops are planted on a rotational system and a broader
zone that includes large expanses of forest lands and waterways used for hunting and
gathering for food, medicinal, construction, transportation and other purposes.
The customary land use patterns of the Maya people are governed by a traditional
land tenure system by which Maya villages hold land collectively, while individuals
and families enjoy subsidiary rights or use and occupancy.
This system exists alongside a system of ‘reservations’ established by the British
colonial administrations that pertains to Maya villages and that continues to exist
under the laws of Belize. But the Maya people note that the reservations include only
about one-half of the Maya villages in the Toledo District and that the customary
land tenure patterns of the Maya communities extend well beyond the reservation
boundaries.
According to a map provided by the State of Belize, a majority of the lands to
which the Maya people claim rights are designated ‘National Land’ and that the
Government only recognises the Maya people’s rights to the reservations. The State
of Belize has continued to authorise and promote development activities on these
‘National Lands’ to which the Maya claim rights, without agreement or consultation
with the Maya communities and without accommodations for Maya resource use and
cultural patterns affected by this development.
The Government has granted logging and oil concessions on the Maya lands in
the Toledo district without meaningful consultations with the Maya. These
concessions have caused substantial environmental harm and threatens long term
and irreversible damages to the natural environment upon which the Maya depend.
Human Rights News
To continue reading
Request your trial