expediente del trÁmite ante la cidh en el caso n

000001

EXPEDIENTE DEL TRMITE ANTE LA CIDHEN EL CASO N 12.419

"COMUNIDAD INDGENA SAWHOYAMAXA DEL

PUEBLO ENXET-LENGUA "

CORTE I.D.H.

1OFEB 2005

RECU:UDO

FROM TIERRAUIUA I PHONE NO. 59521209092 Dec. 03 2004 12:04PM P1

-fA../

OOQ002 !'-" "

r :._:~, i)

SeorSantiago Cantn, Secretario EjecutivoComisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH)Organizacin de los Estados Americanos (OEA) .1889 F Srreer, N.W.Washington, D.e. 20006,EStados Unidos

Ref.: Caso 12.41

FROM TI ERRAIJ 1IJA I PHONE NO. 59521209092 Dec. 03 2004 12:05PM P2

00(\003

S;'WhOY~11n~tX,l desde b~ de '~s p~onas ofreci~ en calidad del'~oS y peritos, cuy.a CUttK:ula, y dir~ciones a fiP. dese-: citadas, serreJnitida en la brevedad a la Honorable Conrlsiu.

1 h.ttp://www.cidh.0ig!:Comnnic:ados/Sl'a.a;,h/1999/Comunic:a

FROM TI ERRAU 1UA I PHONE NO. 59521209092Dec. 03 2004 12:06PM P3

00(1004

Sr. Carlos Mar-ecos AponreLder de la Comunidad Sawhoyamaxa

Sr. Leonardo GonzaleaMiembro y promotor de salud de b Comunidad Sawhoyamaxa

Sra. Gladys BenrazMiembro de la Comunidad Sawhoyamaxa

Sra. Mariana AyalaMiembro de la Comunidad Sawhoyamaea

Sra. Elsa AyalaMiembro de la Comunidad Sawhoyamaxa

Sra. lUsa Ayal'lMiembro de la Comunidad Sawhoyarnaxa

Lic. Rose FrancoAntroploga

Lic. Jorge Servn.Antroplogo

Dr. Rodrigo VillagraAntroplgo

Abog. Osear Ayala Amarilla

b. Nmiua de Peritos.pmpu~

Dr. Jos Alberto BraunsreinAn rroplogo

Dr. Jhonn PalrnerAntroplogo

Dr. Andrew LeakeAntroplogo

Phd, Jos MarceloBrunsteinIngeniero AgmnOTl'lo

Dr. Pablo Balmaced:iMdico

FRDM TI ERRAV 1VA I PHDNE NO. 59521209092 Dec. 03 2004 12:06PM P4

00(\005

5. Los peticion~rios nos reservamos el derecho de ampar esta lista en unmomento posterior.

6. Entendett10s razonable respecto a lilg reparndoneA a St'..f propuestas a la Corteen el~ente caso. las siguienteslnedidas:

Los peticionarios entendernos qu,~ el Estado debe en pr.;rner trmino hacer efectivo el derecho depropiedad y posesin de la Comunidad Sawhoyamaxa j

FROM' : TiER~AVIVA I PHONE NO. 59521209092 Nov. 05 2004 03:20PM P1

00(1006

r

():r:;5

Comunidad Indgena Sawhoyama}(aoParaguay ::c

CASO 12.419-INFORME DE FONDO

ALA ATENC1QN oa, OR. IGNACIO LVAREZ / DRA. I$ABEL MADAAIAGA

oU1

! .

FRDtos establecdosen el caso, suS consecuencias jurldicas. y lasre~cioncs que de ;jlillas derivan. es imposible .proceder a dar acabadamente cumplimiento avuestra invitacin a ,panicipaJ: de la etapa abierta a partir de vuestro Infonne de Fondo, en'condiciones de igual~ pro

FRl3M ~ TI ERf:!AV 1VA I PHONE NO. : 59521209092

2

Nov. 05 2004 03:21PM P3

00(\008

Por tanto. Y en atencin a la prctica ~Avorable respecto a 10 peticionado eetablecida por laHonorable Comisin en el Caso Yakye Axa Vs. Paraguay, m; parte se permite solicitarrespetuosamente ]a cemisi6n a los peticionarios de las partes pertinente... del Infocne de Fondoaprobado en el pres~teCaso.

~n ata> particular y aguardando un favoJ:2hle despacho a 10 peticionado, l>.ago propicia laocasin pan saludarJ~muy cordialmente.

"Muauel DoaDguez iOn ......,z:I.".a 111ttlJtJ,AsuDc:i6A,.p_ lTeldioxS9521211\lW2 - S9S21202M9

INTER - AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

COMISiN INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSAO INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMM1SSION INTERAMRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN 5TATE5WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 O O O 6 U.S.A.

00(\009

La Secretara Ejecutiva de la Comisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos tiene

el honor de dirigirse a la Misin Permanente de la Repblica de Paraguay ante la

Organizacin de los Estados Americanos, con el objeto de acusar recibo de la nota N o 02-

05, de 4 de enero de 2005, relativa al caso 12.419 (Comunidad Indgena Sawhoyamaxa

del Pueblo Enxet).

Al respecto, la Secretara Ejecutiva de la Comisin Interamericana informa al Estado

que la Comisin ha decidido conceder una prrroga al plazo establecido por el artculo

43(2) del Reglamento de la Comisin, que fuera fijado originalmente en dos meses, por el

lapso de 15 das, contado a partir del 3 de enero de 2005, es decir, hasta el 18 de enero

de 2005. El nuevo trmino no excede el plazo establecido por el artculo 51 (1) de la

Convencin Americana, cuyo vencimiento sigue siendo el 3 de febrero de 2005. El objeto

de la prrroga concedida es que el Estado cuente con un plazo adicional para informar a la

Comisin sobre el cumplimiento con las recomendaciones formuladas en el Informe N o

73/04, emitido conforme al artculo 50 de la Convencin Americana.

La Secretara Ejecutiva de la Comisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos

aprovecha la oportunidad para expresar a la Misin Permanente de Paraguay el testimonio

de su ms alta y distinguida consideracin.

/(I\/w"hington, D.C., 6 de enero de 2005Ji' L

1/6/2005-1f-2713

I

VII VOt LVV..; IV. IV I n/\ ""v""""""'uu",, 1....,

TRANSMISSION OK

TX/RX NORECIPIENT ADDRESSDESTINATION IDSr. TIMETIME USEPAGES SENTRESULT

************************ TX REPORT ************************

488582443005PARAGUAV01/08 18: 1500'37

1OK

00(\010

INTER - AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOMISiN INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSAO INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMMISSION INTERAMRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

ORGANIZATION QF AMERICAN STATE5WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 O O O 6 U.S.A.

1

~

La SecretarIa Ejecutiva de la Comisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos tiene

el honor de dirigirse a la Misin Permanente de la Repblica de Paraguay ante la

Organizacin de los Estados Americanos, con el objeto de acusar recibo de la nota No 02-

05, de 4 de enero de 2005, relativa al caso 12.419 (Comunidad Indrgena Sawhoyarnaxa

del Pueblo Enxet).

Al respecto, la SecretarIa Ejecutiva de la Comisin Interamericana informa al Estado

Que la Comisin ha decidido conceder una prrroga al plazo establecido por el artlculo

43(2) del Reglamento de la Comisin, que fuera fijado originalmente en dos meses, por el

lapso de 15 dlas, contado a partir del 3 de enero de 2005, es decir, hasta el 18 de enero

de 2005. El nuevo trmino no excede el plazo establecido por el arttculo 51(1) de la

Convencin Americana, cuyo vencimiento sigue siendo el 3 de febrero de 2005. El objeto

de la prrroga concedida es que el Estado cuente con un plazo adicional para informar a la

Comisin sobre el cumplimiento con las recomendaciones formuladas en el Informe N o

73/04, emitido conforme al arttculo 50 de la Convencin Americana.

La secretsrra Ejecutiva de la Comisi6n Interamericana de Derechos Humanos

"nrnv"r.h", IR onnrrunlrlad nara exoresar a la Misin Permanente de Paraguay el testimonio

Misi6n Permanente del Paraguay

ante la Organizaci6n de los Estados Ame r .carioa., -:' Q , Ir'. -r., ) l...t

Wash~ngton, D. c. 'i.liDS - o " ,-

00(101'1

! I, ,

NO Q- - OS :IMPP-OEA

La Misin Pennanente del Paraguay ante la Organizacin de losEstados Americanos saluda atentamente a la Comisin Interamericana deDerechos Humanos de la Organizacin de Estados Americanos en ocasinde hacer referencia al caso 12.419 (Comunidad Indfgena Sawhoyamaxaca delPueblo Enxet).

Al respecto, esta Misin solicita una prorroga de 30 dias para que elGobierno del Paraguay presente un Informe en relacin a lo solicitado por esaComisin, teniendo en cuenta que aun no se ha recabado toda ladocumentacin pertinente.

D.C., 4 de enero de 2005

La Misin Permanente del Paraguay ante la Organizacin de losEstados Americanos, hace propicia laInteramericana de Derechos Hu

'/~~}.',

Americanos, las seguridades de .,~. ~s~i~Ij~~:1 ;:i-I'!

:'f \~~. ~: ~:,." ':~.;~.;~

A la HonorableComisin Interamericana de Derechos HumanosOrganizacin de Estados AmericanosWashington, D,C.

OOC?012INTER - AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOMISION INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSAO INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMMISSION INTERAMRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATESWASHINGTON, D.C. 2 O O O 6 U.S.A.

18 de noviembre de 2004

REF: 12.419Comunidad Indgena Sawhoyamaxaca del Pueblo EnxetParaguay

Estimado seor Ramrez:

Tengo el agrado de dirigirme a usted en nombre de la Comisin Interamericana deDerechos Humanos, a fin de transmitirle, con carcter reservado, ciertas consideracionesefectuadas por la Comisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos al examinar el caso dereferencia.

Tal como oportunamente se le informara, la CIDH aprob un informe conconclusiones y recomendaciones sobre el caso de referencia, de conformidad con el artculo50 de la Convencin Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Este informe ha sido puesto enconocimiento del Estado, al que se le ha solicitado en 3 de noviembre de 2004 que informedentro de un perodo de dos meses sobre las medidas adoptadas para dar cumplimiento a lasrecomendaciones de la CIDH y solucionar la situacin denunciada. El Estado no estfacultado para publicar el mencionado informe.

En consideracin del carcter reservado de la presente comunicacin, me permitomanifestar a usted que no est autorizado a publicar las consideraciones que se adjuntan,hasta tanto la CIDH decida al respecto.

SeorAndrs RamrezTierra Viva a los Pueblos Indgenas del ChacoManuel Domnguez N 1073Entre EEUU y BrasilAsuncin, Paraguay

(595 -21) 202-039

Anexo

2 aovaf3Aprovecho la oportunidad para saludar a usted muy atentamente.

11/17/2004-LF-2713

unu J.. .... 1l1l

****************************** ERROR TX REPORT ******************************

I&.l VV 1

00(1014

TX FUNCTION WAS NOT COMPLETED

TX/RX NORECIPIENT ADDRESSDESTINA TION IDST. TIMETIME USEPASES SENTRESULT

42848p6087ppp01158521202038

11/1816:5701 '00

1NG ##0283

INTER AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOMISION INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSO INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMMISSION INTERAMRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN 5TATESWASHINGTON, D.C. 2 O O O 6 U.S.A.


REF; 12.419Comunidad Indrgena SawhoYBmaxaca del Pueblo EnxetParaguay



Tal como oportunamente se le informara, la CIDH aprob un informe conconclusiones y recomendaciones sobre el caso de referencia, de conformidad con el artlculo50 de la Convencin Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Este informe ha sido puesto enconocimiento del Estado, al que se le ha solicitado en 3 de noviembre de 2004 que informedentro de un perlodo de dos meses sobre las medidas adoptadas para dar cumplimiento a lasrecomendaciones de la CIDH y solucionar la situacin denunciada. El Estado no estfacultado para publicar el mencionado informe.

En consideracin del carcter reservado de la presente comunicacin, me permitomanifestar a usted que no est autorizado a publicar las consideraciones que se adjuntan,hasta tanto la ClDH decida al respecto.

liJ VV Iu .... ,) l. .... Mt'i11/ 10/ "VV't 10. V I rt'lA o:::: v o:::: 'tO O O'::: 1.:..0 --:

****************************** ERROR TX REPORT ******************************

OO~015

TX FUNCTION WAS NOT COMPLETEO

TX/RX NORECIPIENT AODRESSDESTINA TIDN IDST. TIMETIME USEPASES SENTRESULT

42838pS087ppp01159521202039

11/1816:3502'08

2NS ##0283

INTER - AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOMISION INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSAO INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMMISSION INTERAMRICAINE DES DROITS DE l'HOMME ORGANIZATION Of AMERICAN STATESWASHINGTON, D.C. 2 O OO 6 U.S.A.



Estimado seor Ramfrez:


Tal como oportunamente se le informara, la CIDH aprob un informe conconclusiones y recomendaciones sobre el caso de referencia, de conformidad con el artfculo50 de la Convencin Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Este informe ha sido puesto enconocimiento del Estado, al que se le ha solicitado en 3 de noviembre de 2004 que informedentro de un perlado de dos meses sobre las medidas adoptadas para dar cumplimiento a lasrecomendaciones de la CIDH y solucionar la situacin denunciada. El Estado no estfacultado para publicar el mencionado informe.

En consideracin del carcter reservado de la presente comunicacin, me permitomanifestar a usted que no est autorizado a publicar las consideraciones que se adjuntan,hasta tanto la CIDH decida al respecto.

000016INTER - AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOMISiN NTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSAO INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMMISSION INTERAMRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME




Seora Ministra:

Tengo el honor de dirigirme a Su Excelencia con el objeto de hacer referencia a nuestranota de 3 de noviembre de 2004, mediante la cual se notific a Su Ilustrado Gobierno que laComisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos examin el caso arriba citado en el curso desu 121 o perfodo ordinario de sesiones y de conformidad con el artculo 50 de la ConvencinAmericana sobre Derechos Humanos, aprob el Informe N 73/04, que se acompa a lamencionada Nota.

Al respecto, acompao a la presente nota la pgina 51 del mencionado informe, dadoque la pgina 51 originalmente transmitida contiene una errata, que ha sido corregida en lapgina que ahora se envia. De acuerdo con lo anterior, la pgina 51 originalmente transmitidaa Su Ilustrado Gobierno queda sin efecto.

Aprovecho la oportunidad para expresar a Su Excelencia el testimonio de mi ms alta y

distinguida consideracin. r-"\----~( ....

Santiago A. antonSecretario E ecutivo

Excelentsima seoraLeila RachidMinistra de Relaciones Exteriores de ParaguayAsuncin, Paraguay

Anexo

11/J/2004-LF-2713

11/ I11 LVV't 1 I ';J [rr.l\ V4;:100L 1;:1TRIIHSMISSIOH OK

************************ TX REPORT ************************

IgJVVI

000017

TX/RX 1'10RECIPIEHT IIODRESSDESTIHII TIOH IDST. TIMETIME USEPliSES SEHTRESULT

41408p6087ppp01158521480676

11/11 115600'47

2OK

INTER - AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOMISiN NTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSAO INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMMISSION INTERAMRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

ORGANIZATION Of AMERICAN STATESWASHINGTON, D.C. 2 O O O 6 U.S.A.

2



Seora Ministra:

Tengo el honor de dirigirme a Su Excelencia con el objeto de hacer referencia a nuestranota de 3 de noviembre de 2004, mediante la cual se notific a Su Ilustrado Gobierno que laComisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos examin el caso arriba citado en el curso desu 121 0 perfodo ordinario de sesiones y de conformidad con el artculo 50 de la ConvencinAmericana sobre Derechos Humanos, aprob el Informe N 73/04, que 58 acompa a lamencionada Nota.

Al respecto, acompao a la presente nota la pgina 51 del mencionado informe, dadoque la pgna 51 originalmente transmitida contiene una errata, que ha sido corregida en lapgina que ahora Se enva. De acuerdo con lo anterior, la pgina 51 originalmente transmitidaa Su Ilustrado Gobierno queda sin efecto.


distinguida consideracin. r"'L1 -Sant~go A. ~anton

INTER - AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOMISiN NTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSAO INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMMISSION INTERAMRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

000018

J




Seora Ministra:

Tengo el honor de dirigirme a Su Excelencia con el objeto de comunicarle que laComisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos examin el caso arriba citado en el curso desu 121 0 perodo ordinario de sesiones y de conformidad con el artculo 50 de la ConvencinAmericana sobre Derechos Humanos, aprob el Informe N 73/04, que se acompaa a lapresente.

De acuerdo con las conclusiones del informe, me permito solicitar al ilustrado Gobiernode Paraguay se sirva informar a la Comisin sobre las medidas adoptadas para darcumplimiento a las recomendaciones de la Comisin y solucionar la situacin denunciada en elplazo de dos meses, contados a partir de la fecha de transmisin de la presentecomunicacin.

Conforme a lo establecido en el artculo 43(3) de su Reglamento, la CIDH notificar laadopcin del informe a los peticionarios.


dlstinquida consideracin. \

Santiago A. CantnSecretario Ejecutivo

Excelentsima seoraLeila RachidMinistra de Relaciones Exteriores de ParaguayAsuncin, Paraguay

Anexo

11/3/2004-LF-2713

00(\019

EL DOCUMENTO QUE SE ENCONTRABA A

CONTINUACIN, CORRESPONDE AL ANEXO 2 A LADEMANDA EN EL CASO N 12.419

"COMUNIDAD INDGENA SAWHOYAMAXA DEL

PUEBLO ENXET-LENGUA ".

000020INTER - AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOMISiN INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSAO INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMMISSION INTERAMRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

REF :~419( Comunidad Indgena Sawhoyamaxaca del Pueblo Enxet\earaguay

'-..---._-----~_.,_ .... ,..



Tengo el agrado de dirigirme a usted en nombre de la Comisin Interamericana deDerechos Humanos, a fin de informarle que la Comisin examin el caso arriba citado yaprob un informe de conformidad con el artculo 50 de la Convencin Americana sobreDerechos Humanos. En dicho informe, la Comisin efectu al Estado las recomendacionesque estim pertinentes.

El informe mencionado ha sido puesto en conocimiento del Gobierno de Paraguay, yse le ha solicitado que informe dentro de un perodo de dos meses sobre las medidasadoptadas para dar cumplimiento a las recomendaciones de la Comisin.

Asimismo, de conformidad con el artculo 43(3) del Reglamento de la Comisin, lesolicito que presente, dentro del plazo de un mes, lo siguiente:

a. Su posicin respecto del sometimiento del caso a la Corte Interamericana deDerechos Humanos; la posicin de la vctima y los fundamentos con base en los cualesconsideran, que el caso debe ser remitido a la Corte, de tener inters en ello;

SeorAndrs RamrezTierra Viva a los Pueblos Indgenas del ChacoManuel Domnguez N 1073Entre EEUU y BrasilAsuncin, Paraguay

(595 -21) 202-039

11/3/2004-LF-2713

b. Los datos de la vctima;

2 000021c. Poder que acredite su calidad de representante de la vctima;

d. Prueba documental, testimonial y pericial disponible, adicional a lapresentada durante el trmite del caso a la Comisin. En el caso de los testigos y peritosque se pretenda ofrecer a la Corte, srvanse informar la direccin a la que pueden sercitados. En relacin con los peritos, srvanse remitir una copia de su currculum vitae (hojade vida); y

e. Sus pretensiones en materia de reparaciones y costas.

Aprovecho la oportunidad para saludar a usted muy atentamente,

l&JVVI

000022

Ul"!v-.Ll.Jnn

************************ TX REPORT ************************

1 Ir v

oo(l 0-2 3INTER - AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOMISiN INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSAO INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMMISSION INTERAMRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME


La Secretara Ejecutiva de la Comisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos tiene el

honor de dirigirse a la Misin Permanente de la Repblica de Paraguay ante la Organizacin

de los Estados Americanos, con el objeto de transmitir copia de una nota dirigida al

Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de dicho pas relativa al caso 12.419 (Comunidad

Indgena Sawhoyamaxaca del Pueblo Enxet).

La Secretara Ejecutiva de la Comisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos



(/1",' /;:yvashington, D.C., 11 de noviembre de 2004

[-,(//7~.I '---

.

~ ( ... v v , ..... ..., ",n .... V .... "'T .... ...,v .... r ....

TRANSMISSION OK

TX/RX NORECIPIENT ADDRESSDESTINATION IDST. TIMETIME USEPAGES SENTRESULT

un>.) ....... tlll

************************ TX REPORT ************************

413882443005PARAGUAV1111111:2200'57

3OK

19,J v v 1

00(\024

INTER - AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOMISiN INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSAO INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMMISSION INTERAMRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME


La Secretara Ejecutiva de la Comisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos tiene el



Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de dicho pats relativa al caso 12.419 (Comunidad

Indfgena Sawhoyamaxaca del Pueblo Enxet).

La Secretarfa Ejecutiva de la Comisin tnteramerlcana de Derechos Humanos


de su ms alta y distinqulda consideracin.

00(\(125INTER - AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOMISiN INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSAO INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMMISSION INTERAMRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME


La Secretarfa Ejecutiva de la Comisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos tiene el



Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de dicho pas relativa al caso 12.419 (Comunidad

Indfgena Sawhoyamaxaca del Pueblo Enxet).

La Secretarfa Ejecutiva de la Comisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos



washZ't.o.n, D.C., 3 de noviembre de 2004/'/'

v

I I/U;:;/ZUUq I~:;:;~ ~X!l ZUZq:Jl:loZ I:J,----------------:

************************ TX REPORT ************************

TRANSMISSION OK

IgJUUI

00(102

TX/RX NORECIPIENT ADDRESSDESTINATION IDST. TIMETIME USEPASES SENTRESULT

382382443005PARAGUAV11/03 18:1818'3855

OK

INTER - AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOMISiN INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSAD INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMMISSION INTERAMRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

ORGANIZATION or AMERICAN STATESWASHINGTON, O.C. 2 O O O 6 U.S.A.

la Secretara Ejecutiva de la Comisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos tiene el



Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de dicho pars relativa al caso 12.419 (Comunidad

Indrgena Sawhoyamaxaca del Pueblo Enxet).

La Secretarra Ejecutiva de la Comisin Interamericana de Derechos Humanos



OO(l027

INTER - AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOMISION INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSAO INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMMISSION INTERAMRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

ORGANIZATION Of AMERICAN STATESWASHINGTON,D.C. 2 O O 06 U.S.A.

August 6th, 2004

Ref.: Xakmok Ksek Community of the Enxet People (Paraguay) andSawhoyamaxa Community of the Enxet People (Paraguay)

Dear Sirs,

I am pleased to address you on behalf of the Inter-American Commisson onHuman Rights in order to acknowledge receipt of your communication dated Julyzs-, 2004 where you sent us an Amicus Curiae brief in the reference above.

Sincerely yours,

\lJntia~ A. Ca ton)Executi e Secr tary

SirsJames Silk and Mary HahnYale Law SchoolInternational Human Rights ProgramsP.O. BOX 208215, New HavenConnecticut 06520-8215

Fax: (203) 432-8260

TRANSMISSION OK

************************ TX REPORT ************************

~ v VI

000028

TX/RX NORECIPIENT ADDRESSDESTINATION IDSr. TIMETIME USEPAGES SENTRESULT

27578p6087ppp12034328260

08/08 08: lO01 . 41

1OK

INTER - AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSCOMISION INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOSCOMISSAO INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOSCOMMISSION INTERAMRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATESWASHINGTON,D.C. 2 O O O 6 U.S.A.

August 6th, 2004

Ref.: Xakmok Ksek Communty of the Enxet People (Paraguay) andSawhoyamaxa Community of the Enxet People (Paraguay)

Dear Sirs,

I am pleased to address you on behalf ot the Inter-American Commission onHuman Rights in order to acknowledge receipt of your communication dated Julvzs-. 2004 where vou sen! us an Amicus Curiae brief in the reference above.

Sincerely vours,

\.,i \

.J.. \. '}'Santiag A. Ca tonExecuti e Secr tary

Sirs

~Yale Law School

'T/t-- 00(10291 N TER N A TI O N A L H U M A N R 1 G H TlIJaf ~U~ G...,R A ~ S

O '11 S h 11 ( . . _i O j_J 'l' 4rrVI e H. e e ,Ir. Genter [or lnternational Human Righis L. '.JAlIard K. Lowensten lnternational Human Rights qin.i.~ ~n~ Project

"I...l/ I ') ('Paul W. Kahn, Director. James J. Silk, Executive IJtr~ttui' /: , -. "

'- '-j

July 29, 2004

Mr. Santiago A. CantonExecutive DirectorInter-American Commission on Human Rights1889 F. Street N.W.Washington, D.C. 20006

RE: Sajwhoyarnaxa Indigenous Cornmunity of the Enxet People (Paraguay) andXakmok Ksek Indigenous Cornrnunity of the Enxet People (Paraguay)

Dear Mr. Canton:

On behalf of the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Law Clinic at YaleLaw School, we write respectfully to submit for the Commission's consideration the enclosedamicus curiae brief on whether indigenous peoples continue to have a right in traditionallandsfrom which they have been unlawfully dispossessed and what remedies would be appropriate torectify a violation of such rights.

The Lowenstein Clinic is a Yale Law School program in which international humanrights lawyers and students undertake litigation or research projects on behalf ofhuman rightsorganizations and individual victims ofhuman rights abuses. The Clinic's recent work hasincluded participation in international human rights litigation in U.S. courts, advising non-governmental organizations about using various international mechanisms to address humanrights issues, advocacy before international and regional human rights bodies, and investigatingand drafting reports on human rights situations.

Ifyou or members of the Commission have questions or requests, please do not hesitateto contact us. We can be reached by telephone at 1-203-432-7480; by fax at 1-203-432-8260; or

P.O. BOX 208215, NEW RAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06520-8215 TELEPRONE 203432-7480 FACSIMILE 203432-8260

COURIER ADDRESS 127 WALL STREET, NEW HAVEN, CNNECTICUT 06511. EMAIL [email protected]

Mr. Santiago A. CantonJuly 29,2004Page2

00(\030

byemail [email protected] or [email protected]. Thank you very much for yourconsideration.

Sincerely,

~~9I ;ames Si){ ,,,..Director, Allard K. LowensteinInternational Human Rights Law Clinic

MaryHahnCover/Lowenstein Fellow inInternational Human Rights Law

:, ... e :"'.:~ .J \ / :~: r -,INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS-' " c-: u

lDD4 JI': 30 pu_ L: t 5

.. OO(l031

,-,., f, r-'UI u;ChFUcrO iJ

I i

IN THE MATTERS OF

SAJWHOYAMAXA INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY OF THE ENXET PEOPLE(paraguay), Admissibility Report No. 12/03, petition 0322/2001

and

XAKMOK KASEK INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY OF THE ENXET PEOPLE (Paraguay)Admissibility Report No. 11/03, petition 032612001

BRIEF OF ALLARD K. LOWENSTEIN INTERNATIONALHUMAN RIGHTS CLINIC AS AMICUS CURlAE

ALLARD K. LOWENSTEIN HUMAN RIGHTS CLINICYale Law SchoolP.O. Box 208215New Haven, CT 06520-8215Phone: (203)4327480; Fax: (203)432-8260

James J. SilkExecutive DirectorOrville H. Schell, Jr. Center for Intemational Human Rights

Mary 1. HahnRobert M. Cover/Allard K. Lowenstein FelIow

Dated: New Haven, CTJuly 30, 2004

On the brief: Pamela CamposHeloisa GriggsNicholas Robinson

000032Amicus Brief Presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the

Matters of Sajwhoyamaxa Indigenous Community of the Enxet People(Paraguay), Admissibility Report No. 12/03, petition 0322/2001, and

Xakmok Ksek Indigenous Community of the Enxet People (Paraguay)Admissibility Report No. 11/03, petition 0326/2001

Brief Prepared by:Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic 1

Yale Law SchoolJuly 30, 2004

Interest of Amicus Curiae

The AlIard K. Lowenstein Intemational Human Rights Law Clinic (the Clinic) isa Yale Law School program that gives students first-hand experience in human rightsadvocacy under the supervision of intemational human rights lawyers. The Clinicundertakes numerous litigation and research projects each term on behalf ofhuman rightsorganizations and individual victims ofhuman rights abuses, and has an active amicuspractice. Other Clinic work has inc1uded efforts to promote the work ofregional andintemational organizations that develop and protect human rights, inc1uding the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the African Commission on Human Rights,and the United Nations. The Clinic has conducted research and provided briefs for theSouth African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Foundation for the MedicalTreatment ofTorture Commission. It has also assisted non-governrnental organizationsin preparing numerous reports, legal memoranda and briefs about human rights violationsaround the world.

The Clinic has worked on a number of projects involving the developingjurisprudence about indigenous property rights in the inter-American system. Mostrecently, the Clinic co-authored a submission to the Thematic Hearing Before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: New Developments in Law, Policy andJurisprudence Related to Extractive Industries and Indigenous Peoples Rights (March 4,2004). Thus, the questions presented by these two cases are of great interest to theClinic, its students, and its professors.

Introduction

A1though indigenous peopIes' right to property over their traditionaIIands is nowwelI established in the inter-American human rights system, neither the Commission northe Court has formalIy decided any cases involving two questions raised by theSawhoyamaxa and Xakmok Ksek cases.! First, do indigenous peoples retain the right to

1 This brief was prepared by Pamela Campos, Heloisa Griggs, and Nicholas Robinson, under thesupervision of James J. Silk and Mary Hahn.2lnter_Am. Cornm. R.R., Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community ofthe Enxet People (Paraguay),Admissibilily Report No. 12/03, petition 0322/2001, Feb. 20, 2003, [hereinafter Sawhoyamaxa); Inter-Am,

00(1033property for their traditionallands from which they have been unlawfulIy dispossessedfor a significant period oftime?3 Second, ifthey retain their right to such property, evenafter lengthy dispossession, what remedies are appropriate to rectify the violation oftheirproperty rights?

This brief does not attempt to resolve the specific disputes between Paraguay andthe Sawhoyamaxa and Xakmok Ksek communities, but seeks to provide theCommission with an overview of intemationallaw and state practices regarding thecontinuing right of indigenous peoples to traditionallands from which they have beenunlawfully dispossessed and the appropriate remedies for such violations of indigenouscommunities' property rights. Neither ofthese issues has been clearly resolved byexisting intemationallaw. However, the strong protection provided to indigenouscommunities' communal property under inter-American law and consistent state practicethroughout the Americas provides strong support for finding both that indigenouscomrnunities' right to traditionallands continues after they have been dispossessed ofsuch lands unlawfully, even for a lengthy period, and that restoration of the comrnunities'traditional lands is the primary remedy for such a violation of indigenous property rights.

The inter-American system has long recognized that indigenous peoples' specialcultural, social, and religious ties to their ancestrallands require that their rights toproperty be defined according to indigenous custom and tradition. Under inter-Americanjurisprudence, indigenous peoples may hold a collective right to property in communallands in the absence of formal title. The Commission and Court look to traditional useand occupancy, rather than direct, current occupation, ofthe lands in question to definethe boundaries of indigenous property rights. Inter-American jurisprudence definingindigenous property rights according to traditional use and occupancy is consistent withstate practice in the Americas, as well as existing and emerging intemationallaw. Inaddition, state practice, the Intemational Labor Organization's Convention 169Conceming Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, and emergingintemationallaw on the rights of indigenous peoples indicate that dispossession, even forextended periods oftime, is not necessarily a barrier to an indigenous community'scontinuing right to property over its traditionallands.

Restoration of traditionallands is the preferred remedy for violations ofindigenous property rights that involve unlawful dispossession. Restoration of traditionallands is the only remedy that is consistent with the recognition ofthe indigenous peoples'close ties to their traditionallands. State practice, both within and outside the Americas,ofrestoring traditionallands demonstrates the general intemational acceptance ofrestitution as the primary remedy for violation of indigenous peoples' property rights.States have retumed traditionallands to indigenous communities even where such landsare significant in size, are privately owned by innocent third parties, and costly topurchase. Only when restoration oftraditionallands is not feasible are altemative

Cornm. H.R., Xakmok Ksek Indigenous Community 01the Enxet People (Paraguay), Admissibility ReportNo. 11/03, petition 0326/2001, Feb. 20,2003 [hereinafter Xakmok Ksek).J For the purposes of this brief, amici assume the Sawhoyamaxa and Xakmok Ksek cornmunities wereunlawfully dispossessed oflands they traditionally occupied and used.

2

00(1034remedies, such as providing substitute lands or monetary compensation, consideredadequate.

Argument

1. Indigenous Peoples Have a ColIective Right to Lands They HaveTraditionalIy Used and Occupied That is Not Necessarily Extinguished byUnlawful Dispossession, Even When Dispossession Continues for anExtended Period of Time.

The nter-American human rights system has consistently recognized thatindigenous people's special cultural, social, and religious ties to their ancestrallands givethem a collective property right to those lands. Inter-American jurisprudence has shownparticular sensitivity to the needs of indigenous peoples by recognizing a right to propertyin traditional communallands even in the absence offormal title. Organization ofAmerican States (OAS) member states are obligated to protect and ensure this right toproperty. The inter-American system has also recognized that respect for indigenouscustom and tradition is critical in defming those indigenous property rights. Under inter-American jurisprudence, the Commission and Court look to traditional use andoccupancy to define the boundaries of indigenous communities' property rights. Inanalyzing traditionallands to determine indigenous groups' property rights, theCommission has included lands not directly occupied or possessed by the indigenousgroups. This analysis, together with the Commission's emphasis ofthe principle thatstates must "restore" the right to property and emerging intemationallaw, suggests thatindigenous peoples have a collective right to lands they have traditionally occupied orused that is not extinguished by unlawful dispossession, even if that dispossession islengthy. Fundamental notions ofjustice and equity support the same conelusion. Whilesuch a finding represents an extension of current inter-American jursprudence, it isconsistent with the Court's and Commission's jurisprudence on indigenous propertyrights, particularly their attention to and protection ofindigenous peoples' specialrelationship to traditionallands.

A. Indigenous Peoples' Right to Lands They Have Traditionally UsedOr Occupied Is Well Established in the Inter-American System.

The inter-American system has consistently recognized indigenous peoples' rightto property for their ancestrallands, due to their strong cultural and religious ties to theselands. Recognition ofindigenous peoples' right to communallands under nter-Americanjurisprudence is consistent with the general consensus ofthe United Nations, multilateralinstitutions, and emerging intemationallaw.

Artiele 21 ofthe American Convention on Human Rights and nter-Americanjurisprudence establish that indigenous peoples have a right to traditional and communallands. Artiele 21 ofthe Convention states:

3

00(1035Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment ofhis property.... Noone shall be deprived of his property except upon payment ofjustcompensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and in thecases and according to the forms established by law."

The Inter-American Court has established that this right to property protectsindigenous peoples' collective right of ownership to traditionallands and resources.i InAwas Tingni, the Court recognized that "[ajmong indigenous peoples there is acommunitarian tradition regarding a communal form of collective property of the land, inthe sense that ownership of the land is not centered on an individual but rather on thegroup and its community.?" Failure to recognize and respect this collective right ofownership violates the right to property.' Specifically, in Awas Tingni, the Court foundthat Nicaragua's grant of a logging concession to third parties on traditionallandsviolated the Awas Tingni 's right to property'

When discussing the basis for recognition of indigenous peoples' rights totraditionallands, the Court and Commission have consistently highlighted the specialrelationship indigenous peoples have with their lands. The Court first recognized thisrelationship in Awas Tingni, stating that "indigenous groups, by the fact of their veryexistence, have the right to live freely in their own territory; the close ties ofindigenouspeople with the land must be recognized and understood as the fundamental basis oftheircultures, their spirituallife, their integrity, and their economic survival.?" TheCommission, which has long recognized this special relationship, stated recently in MayaBelize:

Indigenous peoples enjoya particular relationship with the lands andresources traditionally occupied and used by them, by which those landsand resources are considered to be owned and enjoyed by the indigenouscommunityas a whole and according to which the use and enjoyment ofthe land and its resources are integral components ofthe physical andcultural survival ofthe indigenous communities and the effectiverealization of their human rights more broadly."

4 See also Artiele XXIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.5 See Inter-Am. Ct, H.R, The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case. Judgment of August 31,2001 (Ser. C.) No. 79, para. 148 [hereinafter Awas Tingni]. This right to property exists even where astate 's law has no! recognized such a right in its property regime. As the Commission recently noted, "thejurisprudence of the system has acknowledged that the property rights of indigenous peoples are notdefined exclusively by entitlements within a state 's formal legal regime, but also inelude that indigenouscommunal property that arises from and is grounded in indigenous custom and tradition." lnter-Am.Comm. R.R., Maya Indigenous Communities 01the Toledo District 01Belize (Belize) Report No. 96/03,case 12.053, Ocl. 24,2003, para. 116 [hereinafter Maya Belize].6 Id. para. 149.1 Id. para. 153.8 Id. para. 153.9 Awas Tingni, supra, para. 149.10 Maya Belize, supra, para. 113.

4

OO(l()36Under inter-Americanjurisprudence, AS member states have an affirmative

obligation to restore, protect, and preserve indigenous peoples' right to communalproperty. In its reports on petitions and on the human rights situation in member states,and by authorizing precautionary measures, the Commission has emphasized theobligation of states to take measures to restore, protect, and preserve the rights ofindigenous peoples to their traditionallands. In the Mary and Carrie Dann case, theCommission stated that the American Declaration of Human Rights requires "the takingof special measures to ensure recognition of the particular and col1ective interest thatindigenous people have in the occupation and use of their traditionallands and resourcesand their right not to be deprived ofthis interest except with fully informed consent,urider conditions of equality, and with fair compensation."!' The Commission alsodiscussed this state responsibility in Maya Belize, stating:

The Commission ... has pronounced upon the necessity of states to takethe measures aimed at restoring, protecting and preserving the rights ofindigenous peoples to their ancestral territories. It has also held thatrespect for the col1ective rights of property and possession of indigenouspeople to the ancestrallands and territories constitutes an obligation ofAS member states, and that the failure to fulfil1 this obligation engagesthe intemational responsibility of the states.V

In explaining the importance of the state's obligation to protect this right, theCommission emphasized the special relationship with their lands that indigenous peoplesenjoy, stating that

protection of the right to property of the indigenous people to theirancestral territories is a matter of particular importance, because theeffective protection of ancestral territories implies not only the protectionof an economic unit but the protection of the human rights of a col1ectivethat bases its economic, social and cultural development upon theirrelationship with the land. 13

Indigenous peoples' right to communallands under inter-American jurisprudenceis consistent with the general consensus of the United Nations and multilateralinstitutions." Emerging intemationallaw also supports indigenous peoples' rights to landtraditional1y occupied or used." Multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank,16 the

11 Report No. 75/02, case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), Dec. 27, 2002, para. 131[hereinafter Dann].12 Maya Belize, supra, para. 114.13 Id. para. 119.14 See, e.g., lntemational Labor Organization, Convention Conceming Indigenous and Tribal Peoples inlndependent Countries, Sept. 5, 1991, 169 I.L.O. 1989 [hereinafter ILO Convention 169]; UN Conventionon the Elimination of Al! Forros ofRacial Discrimination Committee, Gen. Rec. XXIII Conceminglndigenous Peoples, 51" Sess; 1235 mtg, para. 5, UN Doc. CERD/C/51/Misc.13/RevA (1997) [hereinafterCERD General Recommendation].15 United Nations Human Rights Committee, Draft Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples, arto26, E/CNA/Sub.2/1994/2/Add.l (1994) (stating "Indigenous peoples have the right to own, develop,

5

OOQ()37Inter-American Development Bank;" and the United Nations Development Program,have also adopted policy directives requiring recognition of indigenous land rights."

Because of their special cultural, social, and religious ties to their ancestrallands,indigenous peoples have a collective right to lands they have traditionally occupied orused. The inter-American system has consistently recognized this right and hasemphasized that DAS member states have an obligation to protect and ensure it.

control and use the lands and territories, including the total environment of the lands, air, waters, coastalseas, sea-ice, flora and fauna and other resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwiseoccupied or used") [hereinafter U.N. Draft Declaration]; Proposed American Declaration on the Rights 01Indigenous Peoples (Approved by the Inter-American Cornmission on Human Rights on February 26, 1997, atits 1333rd session, 95th Regular Session), OENSer/UV/.II.95 Doc.6, arto 18 (1997) (stating "indigenouspeoples have the right to the legal recognition oftheir varied and specific forms and modalities oftheircontrol, ownership, use and enjoyrnent of territories and property") [hereinafter American Draft Declaration].16 The World Bank Group, The World Bank Operational Manual, Operational Directive: IndigenousPeoples (OD 4.20) (1991), available at

B. Indigenous Peooles' Right to Prooerty Derives from Traditional Use or

Occuoancy of Land, Ineluding Land They Have Not Directly Occuoied orPossessed.

Inter-American jurisprudence, state practice in the Americas, and existing andemerging intemationallaw look to traditional use and occupancy when determiningindigenous property rights. The inter-American system has recognized property rightsthat fall outside of formal, state-created property regimes. Inter-American case lawrecognizes property rights to lands not directly occupied by indigenous groups where thegroups' traditional use or traditional occupancy establishes their connection to the land."

Inter-Americanjurisprudence has shown particular sensitivity to the needs ofindigenous peoples in establishing a right to property in communallands in the absenceof formal title. It has also recognized that respect for indigenous custom and tradition iscritical in defining those indigenous property rights. In Maya Belize, the Commissionstated that the "property rights of indigenous peoples ... inelude that indigenous propertythat arises from and is grounded in indigenous custom and tradition.v'" Thus, underinter-Americanjurisprudence, the Commission and Court look to traditional occupancyor use of the lands in question when defining the boundaries of the property rights ofindigenous communities.

The Commission has found that indigenous people's traditional use of land, evenin the absence oftheir direct occupation, creates a right to property. In Maya-Belize, theCommission found that the Maya people's right to use of1and extended beyond occupiedvillage settlements "to inelude lands that are used for afficulture, hunting, fishing,gathering, transportation, cultural and other purposes." 1 While the Maya lived withinvillage settlements, the Commission found that their current and historical use of landbeyond the villages was sufficient to establish a right to lands outside of villageboundaries.f

19 By "directly occupied" lands, amicus refers to lands that indigenous cornmunities have developed orupon which they have built homes or village settlements. By lands traditionally used or occupied, amicusrefers to lands that are used for residential purposes as well as other traditional purposes, such as hunting,fishing, gathering, spiritual rites, or other traditional activities. See Maya-Belize, supra, para. 128.20 Id. para. 116. See a/so Dann, supra note 7, para. 131.21 Maya-Belize, supra, para. 128.22 Several states in the Americas expressly share the same principIes in their laws. For example, inGuatemala, the Agreement on Identity and Rights ofIndigenous Peoples guarantees "the right of access tolands and resources which are not occupied exc1usivelyby cornmunities but to which the latter havehistorically had access for their traditional activities and their subsistence." Agreement on Identity andRights ofIndigenous Peoples, art IV.F.6.a, cited in Inter-Am, Cornm. H.R., Authorities and Precedents inInternational and Domestic Law for the Proposed American Dec1aration on the Rights ofIndigenousPeoples (2001), available in DAS Compilation of Authorities and Precedents. In Ecuador, a law definespossession of indigenous lands to include historical activity such as gathering, hunting, and fishing.Anteproyecto Ley de Nacionalidades Indgenas (1988), arto 14 (stating "[s]e entender por posesin detierras rsticas, todo tipo de actividad de proteccin ejercida por un pueblo indgena sobre recursosnaturales existentes dentro de una determinada circunscripcin geogrfica, as como el haber ejercitado enel actividades ancestrales de recoleccin, caza y pesca"). In Colombia, lands in which indigenous peoplesconduct traditional cultural and economic activities are considered indigenous territory. See Decreto No.2.001 de 1988, arto 2 (stating "[s]e entiende como territorio indgena aquellas reas posedas por una

7

00(l039The Court has also found that exclusive use or occupancy oftraditionallands is

not necessary for indigenous peoples to establish a property right. In Awas Tingni, theCourt looked to an indigenous community's current possession of land to indicate itsright to disputed lands, but did not require that single community to be in sole possessionof the lands.23 The Cornmission argued that "there are lands that have traditionally beenshared by Awas Tingni and other communities. The concept ofproperty can consist ofco-ownership or in access and use rights, according to the customs of indigenouscommunities ofthe Atlantic Coast.,,24 The shared use ofthis land did not prevent theCourt from finding that the "members ofthe Awas Tingni Community have a communalproperty right to the lands they currently inhabit, without detriment to the rights of otherindigenous cornmunities.?"

ILO Convention 169 also specifies that traditional use, as well as occupancy, canprovide the basis for indigenous people's right to land. Article 13(2) provides thatreferences to indigenous lands in the convention include "the concept of territories, whichcover[s] the total environment ofthe areas which the peoples concemed occupy orotherwise use. ,,26 According to Article 14(1), if indigenous peoples have traditionally hadaccess to lands for subsistence and traditional activities, their right to continue to usethose lands should, in appropriate cases, be protected even where they do not haveexclusive occupation ofthe lands."

Emerging intemationallaw is consistent with the inter-Americanjurisprudenceand ILO Convention 169. The U.N. Draft Declaration provides that "indigenous peopleshave the right to own, develop, control and use the lands and territories, including thetotal environment ofthe lands, air, waters, coastal seas, sea-ice, flora and fauna and otherresources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used.,,28 TheDraft American Declaration states that "indigenous peoples have the right to therecognition of their property and ownership rights with respect to lands, territories andresources they have historically occupied, as well as to the use of those to which theyhave historically had access for their traditional activities and livelihood.,,29

Because indigenous peoples share a special relationship with their ancestral lands,the inter-American system looks to traditional use of lands to determine indigenousproperty rights, even in the absence of the ordinary markers of ownership, such as directpossession and occupation. Recognition of indigenous property rights based on either

parcialidad, comprendiendo en ellas no solo las habitadas y explotadas sino tambin aquellas queconstituyen el mbito tradicional de sus actividades econmicas y culturales")23 AB used by the Court in Awas Tingni, lands "possessed" by the indigenous comrnunity include landstraditionally occupied to live on and used to carry out social, cultural, and economic activities. AwasTingni, supra, para. ISO.24 Awas Tingni, supra, para. 140.25 Id. para 153.26 ILO Convention 169, supra, arto 13 para. 2.27 ILO Convention 169, supra, arto 14 para. 1.28 U.N. Draft Declaration, supra, arto 26.29 American Draft Declaration, supra, arto 18.

8

OO(l()40traditional use or occupancy, rather than only direct occupation, is consistent with themajority state practice within the Americas, with ILO Convention 169, and withemerging intemationallaw.

C. Inter-American Jurisprudence, ILO 169, and State Practice Supports thePrincipIe that Unlawful Dispossession ofTraditional Lands Does NotExtinguish an Indigenous Community's Right to Those Lands.

In its jurisprudence to date, the Court and Commission have used "traditional useand occupancy" to address the geographic scope of indigenous land claims. Maya Belizeand Awas Tingni both look to traditional indigenous use of an area over time to define thegeographical boundaries ofthe indigenous people's property right. However, the Courtand Commission have not directly addressed the persistence of a property right based ontraditional use and occupancy when an indigenous group has been unlawfullydispossessed of its land. Recognizing the persistence of the indigenous right to land afterunlawful dispossession is a natural extension of inter-American jurisprudence, required toensure the protection of indigenous communities that the Court and the Commission haveaffirmed, and consistent with state practice, ILO jurisprudence, and fundamental notionsof justice and equity.

i. Inter-American jurisprudence supports the principIe recognized byILO Convention 169 that the right oJindigenous communities to theirtraditionaIlands is not extinguished by unlawJul dispossession.

In Maya Belize, the Commission emphasized that it "has pronounced upon thenecessity of states to take the measures aimed at restoring, protecting, and preserving therights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral territories.t"" Although the Maya Belizedecision dealt with lands being used by the Maya and threatened by the state's grant oflogging and oil concessions, the Commission's emphasis on restoration suggests thatwhere an indigenous group's lack of current use or occupancy is the result ofunlawfuldispossession, it may not be a barrier to asserting a right to traditionallands.

The ILO expressly recognizes that dispossession is not necessarily a barrier toindigenous peoples' right to property. In its Manual on Convention 169, the ILO statesthat lands traditionally occupied by indigenous communities may include "lands whichhave been recently los1.,,31 In fact, one respected commentator on Convention 169 hasdocumented that the drafters of the convention specifically considered, and then rejected,limiting indigenous communities' rights to their traditionallands to only those lands thatwere currently occupied by the indigenous communty.Y As the commentator explains:

30 Maya Belize, supra, para. 117.31 Intemational Labour Office, ILO Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples 1989 (No. 169): AManual (2000), available at (last accessedApril10,2004).32 Manuela Tomei and Lee Swepston, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples: A Guide to ILO Convention No. 169(Geneva 1996), available at http://www-ilo-mirror.comell.edu/public/eng1ish/employment/strat/poldevfpubl/conv169.htm [hereinafter 1LO Guide]

9

000041It was suggested, at various times during the discussion ofthe adoption ofthe Convention, that this provision should read "have traditionallyoccupied" which would have indicated that the occupation would have tocontinue into the present to give rise to any rightS.33

That restrictive language was later rejected in favor ofthe adopted texto The wording thatwas ultimately adopted indicates that unlawful dispossession of traditionallands is not abarrier to the continuing right in those lands. Although the ILO indicates that the landsmust have been "recently lost" and does not define precisely the length of time connotedby that phrase," it has clearly indicated that ILO Convention 169 recognizes thatindigenous peoples' right to property is not automatically extinguished by a period ofdispossession.

In sum, both inter-Americanjurisprudence and the ILO indicate that indigenouspeoples' traditional rights to land persist after unlawful dispossession.

ii. State praetiee shows a general trend in favor ofreeognizing aeontinuing right to indigenous land when indigenous eommunitieshave been dispossessed ofsueh lands unlawful/y, even for a lengthyperiodo

Although the Manual to the ILO Convention 169 indicates that lands must berecently lost for indigenous communities' to retain a right in them, state practice indicatesa more expansive view. Several states have consistently found that indigenouscommunities continue to have a right to property in their traditionallands, even after theyhave been unlawfully dispossessed of those lands for a lengthy period of time.

In the United States and Canada, the doctrine of aboriginal title allows indigenousgroups to assert c1aims for land even ifthey are not in possession ofthe land in question,the c1aimis brought centuries after the land has been misappropriated, and "innocent"purchasers will be affected. Under the doctrine of aboriginal title, the United States andCanada recognize indigenous rights to land unless the national govemment itselfextinguishes that right by treaty, contract between the indigenous group and the nationalgovernment, war, or lawful taking. In the absence of govemmental action, indigenousgroups may bring a c1aimfor land even centuries after it has been misappropriated; theindigenous group need not be in current possession ofthe land to assert a c1aim.

3) Id.

34 See infra Part I.C.ii for documentation ofstate recognition ofindigenous cornmunities' rights totraditionallands even after lengthy dispossession. At least one cornmentary on ILO Convention 169 hassuggested that interpretation of Article 14(1) should be read in conjunction with Article 14(3), whichrequires adequate procedures to be established by national governments but does not specify any time limiton the claims that can be addressed through such procedures. See ILO Guide. Recognizing that "[t]herewill be rnany cases in which these peoples are only now able to make claims to lands which they onceheld," the cornmentary suggests that "[t]he govemment has to establish procedures to resolve these claimsin a way which gives these peoples a real possibility of obtaining the return oftheir lands or compensationfor lost lands." Id.

10

00(\042In the United States, a tribe retains a right to occupy land unless the title is

extinguished by a lawful taking by the federal government, a contract with the federalgovernment, or a treaty." The right of occupancy creates an "indefeasible title to thereservations that may extend from generation to generation, and will cease only by thedissolution of the tribe, or their consent to sell to the party possessed of the right of pre-emption. ,,36 Thus, in the absence of federal action, tribes may c1aim a right to theirtraditionallands, even after they have been taken and owned for lengthy periods oftimeby private or public landowners.V

Claims under aboriginal title in the United States may not be time barred and canbe brought even centuries after the tribe has been dispossessed. In Cayuga Indian NationofNew York v. Cuomo, the Cayuga tribe sought title to 64,015 acres of land in centralNew York 175 years after they had lost possession. The tribe alleged that they hadpossessed the land from time immemorial until 1784, when they signed a treaty with thestate ofNew York to relinquish all oftheir lands." Despite vigorous defenses based onstatutes oflimitations and the e1apse oftime, the court recognized the tribe's right to titlebecause thefederal government had never extinguished native title by sovereign action. 39

Canadian law is similar. Under Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, aboriginalgroups may assert c1aims to lands even if they are not currently in possession of thelanda/" In Delgamuukw, the Canadian Supreme Court found that an aboriginal groupcan successfully assert a c1aimto native title ifthe title has not been extinguished througha previous treaty or lawful taking and the group was physicalIy present on the land at the

35 Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida County, 94 S.Ct. 772, 777 (1974) ("[A]lthough fee title to the landsoeeupied by Indians when the eolonists arrived beeame vested in the sovereign--first the diseoveringEuropean nation and later the original States and the United States--a right ofoeeupaney in the Indian tribeswas nevertheless reeognized. That right, sometimes called Indian [aboriginal] title and good against all butthe sovereign, eould be terminated only by sovereign act."); see also Tee Hit Ton, 348 U.S. 272, 280 (1955)(aboriginal title eonfers no proprietary interest but only a right to oeeupy land).36 New York Indians, 5 Wall. 761, 18 L.Ed. 708 (1867) (noting that the state ofNew York did not possessthe right of pre-emption).37 See, e.g., Oneida Indian Nation v. N.Y., 691 F.2d 1070 (2nd Cir. 1982) [hereinafter Oneida 11](ehallenging sale oftriballand made in 1785 and 1788, holding that elaims were not time barred); CayugaIndian Nation v. Cuomo, 730 F.Supp. 485 (N.D.N.Y. 1990) (ehallenging triballand sales in 1795 and1807.)38 Beeause the treaty violated the Nonintereourse Aet, whieh provides that only the federal government mayalienate tribes of their land, the state treaty was not valid.39 See also Oneida ll, 691 F.2d at 1083 (rejeeting state statute oflimitations, federal statute oflimitations,and laehes as defenses against an aboriginal title elaim brought 175 years after dispossession of land);Board ofCounty Comm 'rs v. US, 308 U.S. 343, 350-51 (1939) ("state notions oflaehes and state statute oflimitations have no applieability lo suits by the Government ... on behalf of Indians"); Swim v. Berland696 F.2d 712 ("The failure ofthe Tribes to exercise their grazing rights from 1907, when local ForestService officials ousted them, to 1978 has no effect on the vitality oftheir Artiele IV rights. Laches orestoppel is not available to defeat Indian treaty rights.'')40 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. JOJO, para. 143 [hereinafter Delgamuukw]. The Courtalso recognized that "conelusive evidence of pre-sovereignty occupation may be difficult to come by." Ifso, "an aboriginal cornmunity may provide evidence of present oceupation as proof of pre-sovereigntyoccupation in support of a elaim to aboriginal title.' Id. para. 152.

11

OOl1(l43rr:

time Canada gained sovereignty over the land." Thus only occupation at the time ofdispossession, not at the time that the right is asserted, is deemed relevant. Indigenousgroups in Canada have successful1y asserted land c1aims involving illegal dispossessionof indigenous land that occurred in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.f

Australia and New Zealand also recognize c1aims to aboriginal title even whenindigenous groups no longer possess or have access to the land c1aimed. Similar to theUnited States and Canada, Australia recognizes the validity of c1aims based on aboriginaltitle unless the c1aims have been extinguished by treaty or the c1ear and plain intent ofthenationallegislature.f For lands over which aboriginal title has not been extinguished bytreaty or law, indigenous groups may establish claims to lands that they do not currentlyoccupy. Australia recognizes native title when the aboriginal group can show connection,occupation, use or presence, which can be in the form of spiritual affiliation, settlementand cultivation, nomadic hunting and fishing, or use of resources, at the time Australiagained sovereignty over the land.44 The Australian High Court has held that to make asuccessful c1aim, an aboriginal group must also continue to observe customs throughwhich it substantially maintains a traditional connection with the land."

In New Zealand, indigenous groups have entered into a number of settlements forc1aims on land resulting from violations ofthe Treaty ofWaitangi; many ofthese dateback to 1840.46 The indigenous groups do not have to be in current use or occupation ofthe land c1aimed.

41 Id. para. 147. The Canadian Supreme Court considered a number offactors when determining ifthe tribewas physically present on the land at the time Canada gained sovereignty over the area. These factorsincluded "the construction of dwellings through cultivation and enclosure of fields[,] regular use of definitetracts ofland for hunting, fishing or otherwise exploiting its resources." Id. para. 149. The court also foundthat the analysis should include "the group 's size, manner of life, material resources, and technologicalabilities, and the character ofthe lands claimed" when considering evidence that the tribe was historicallyf:resent on the claimed land. Id.

2 See TheJames Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) (1975); Northeastem Quebec Agreement(NEQA) (1978); The Inuvialuit Final Agreement (1984); The Gwich'in Agreement (1992); The NunavutLand Claims Agreement (1993); The Councilfor Yukon Indians Agreement (1993); The Sahtu Dene andMetis Agreement (1994); The Nisga'a Agreement-in-Principle (1996), available al http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/info/trty_e.htm1 (last accessed June 24, 2004).43 Significantly, claims to native title are restricted in Australia to vacant Crown land; sorne state forests,national parles, and public reserves; oceans, seas, reefs, lakes, and inland waters; and certain leases (non-exclusive agriculturalleases or non-exclusive pastoralleases). Native Title Act 1993, Div. 2B, 23A et seq.,amended by Native Title Act 1998, available al htl:J>://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/2/1142/top.htrn.However, nationallaw has expressly extinguished native title to privately owned fee simple land. NationalNative Tille Tribunal Webpage, available at http://www.nntt.gov.au/publications/l036375662_1544.html(Iast accessed May 19, 2004).44 See Richard Bartlett, Native Tille in Australia, 82-121 (2000)4S Mabo v. Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, at 59-60 [hereinafter Mabo v. Queensland].46 For examples of crown land returned to indigenous groups in New Zealand see Ngaa Rauru Deed ofSettlement, Nov. 2003; Ngati Tuwharetoa Deed ofSettlement, June 2003; Ngati Awa Deed ofSettlement,March 2003; Ngati Tama Deed ofSettlement, Dec. 2001; Te Uri o Hau Deed ofSettlement, Dec. 2000;Ngati Turangitukua Deed ofSettlement, Sept. 1998; Ngai Tahu Deed ofSettlement, Nov. 1997; Waikato-Tainui Deed ofSettlement, May 1995; New Zealand Office ofTreaty Settlements, available at (Iast accessed June 22, 2004).

12

000044

.....

SignificantIy, in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa,ownership of lands by innocent third parties does not extinguish the indigenouscommunities' continued right to the lands.47 In the United States, for example, suchclaims may be brought even though they may affect "innocent" purchasers of the land. InCayuga, for example, the court rejected the argument that the tribe's claim for land wasunjust because ofthe disruptive effect the claim could have on "innocent purchasers.v"In a subsequent decision involving the same c1aim, the court found that "the courts havein numerous contexts treated as justiciable [those] c1aims that resulted in wide-rangingand 'disruptive' remedies.v'" The one exception is Australia. By statute, Australia hasextinguished native title in land currentIy owned by afee-simple private owner.i"However, aboriginal groups may have the right to access the lands for traditionalpurposes, such as religious purposes, despite non-fee-simple ownership by non-aborginalprivate parties, such as a pastorallease granting grazing rights owned by private partes."

Numerous constitutional and statutory provisions, as well as state practice, in theAmericas create a right to restitution of traditionallands. Although these remedialprovisions and practices may not directly address the persistence of an indigenouscommunity's right to traditionallands afier unlawful dispossession, the consistentwillingness of nations to return large parcels of lands or provide other compensation forthose lands provides support for the appropriateness of finding a right to those lands.52

Paraguay, in reaching a friendly settlement to restore then-privately owned lands to anindigenous community, "recognized the existence ofthe indigenous communities' rightto the land at both the domestic and internationallevels. ,,53 Columbia, Ecuador, andBolivia have all created rights to restitution of traditionallands, while Argentina, Chile,and Brazil have, in practice, returned traditionallands to indigenous groups."

This state practice of recognizing an indigenous group's right to traditionallands,even afier lengthy dispossession, comports with fundamental notions ofjustice andequity. Unlawful dispossession of indigenous lands has ofien been accomplished bygovernment action or with government sanction at a time when the rights of indigenouscommunities were systematically overlooked in favor of economic development. Afinding that unlawful dispossession extinguishes an indigenous right to traditionallands

47 See Part Il.Afi (discussing rights to restoration oftraditionallands even when privately owned).48 Cayuga Indian Nation v. Cuomo, 565 F.Supp. 1297, 1310 (N.D.N.Y. 1983); see alsa Brooks v. Nez PerceCaunty, 670 F.2d 835, 837 (9th cir. 1982) (finding that laches did not bar a claim for restitution oflandeven though 35 years had passed and another party had purchased the property at auction).49 Cayuga Indian Natian v. Cuoma, 771 F.Supp. 19,24 (N.D.N.Y. 1991), quoting Oneida 11, 691 F.2d at1083. While the district and appellate courts both recognized the right to land, the district court laterrejected ejectrnent as a remedy because ofthe significant impact such a c1aim would have on numerouslandholders. See infra. note 116 below.so Native Title Act 1993, Div. 2B, 23A et seq., amended by Native Title Act 1998, available athttp://scaleplus.law.gov.aulhtmllpasteactl2/1142/top.htrn.51 See Wik Peoples v. The State ofQueensland & Ors, 187 CLR 1, Matter No. B8, High Court of Australia(1996).S2 See Section m.B.i infra.53 Inter-Arn. Cornrn. R.R., Enxet-Lamenxay and Kayleyphapapyet (Riachito) Indigenaus Communities v.Paraguay (Paraguay), Report No. 90/99, Case 11.713, para. 12.54 See Section Ill.Bd infra.

13

00(\045would essentially repeat the initial dispossession and deprive, for all time, the affectedindigenous peoples ofthe enjoyrnent oftheir special relationship with traditionallands.

State practice in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealanddemonstrates that an indigenous community's right to traditionallands continues afterunlawful dispossession, even when that dispossession is lengthy. This practice isconsistent with the Cornmission 's declaration in Maya Belize that states have aresponsibility to restore ancestralland rights to indigenous groups; it is also consistentwith the ILO Manual on Convention 169.

11. Restoration of land is the principal remedy for a violation of indigenouspeoples' property rights that results in their dispossession of traditionallands.

The Inter-American Court has emphasized that "it is a principle ofintemationallaw .... that every violation of an intemational obligation which results in harm creates aduty to make adequate reparation.t''" The Commission has also found that "reparation is... obligatory following a State's failure to enforce an intemational convention orcommitment.t''" The Court defines reparation as "full restitution (restitutio in integrum),which ineludes the restoration ofthe prior situation, the reparation ofthe consequences ofthe violation, and indernnification for patrimonial and non-patrimonial damages,including emotional harm.,,57 Thus, the principle forro ofreparation under inter-American law is restitution. The inter-American system's jurisprudence on the right torestitution ref1ects the wide recognition ofthe right to restitution under intemationallaw.58Because indigenous peoples have a special relationship with their traditionallands,restoration of these lands must be the preferred remedy for illegal dispossession of lands.

ss Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Velsquez Rodrguez Case, Compensatory Damages, Judgment of July 21,1989~Ser. C) No. 7, para. 25. [Hereinafter VeIsquez Rodrguez]6 Inter-Am. Cornm. H.R., Report No. 20/99, Case 1/.3/7, Rodolfo Robles Espinoza (pero), in Annual

Report ofthe Inter-American Cornmission on Human Rights 1998, at 787, para. 161, OENSe.LN/lI.102,Doc. 6 rey. (1999).S1 Velsquez Rodrguez, supra, para. 26.S8 See Factory at Chorzow (Germany Y. Poland) 1928 P.C.U. (ser. A) No. 17 at 47 (September 13)(articulating the basic remedial norm for a state's violations ofinternationallaw: "reparation must, as far aspossible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would, in allprobability, have existed ifthat act had not been cornmitted. Restitution in kind, or, ifthis is not possible,payrnent of a sum corresponding to the value which a restitution in kind would bear; the award, if need be,of darnages for loss sustained which would not be covered by restitution in kind or payrnent in place of it-such are the principies which should serve to determine the amount of compensation due for an act contraryto international law"); See also Study concerning the rght to restitution, compensation, and rehabilitationfor victims ofgross violations ofhuman rights and fundamental freedoms, Final report submitted by Theovan Boyen, Special Rapporteur, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8, seco IX paras. 7 and 8 (Van Boven identifiedrestitution as the first form ofreparation, stating that "[r]estitution shall be provided to re-establish, to theextent possible, the situation that existed for the victim prior to the violations ofhuman rights. Restitutionrequires, inter alia, restoration ofliberty, citizenship or residence, employment or property." Particularlyrelevant to the right to remedy for violations ofindigenous peoples' col1ective right to property, van Bovenproposed that "[sjtates shal1 make adequate provision for groups ofvictims to bring col1ective claims and toobtain col1ective reparation. Special measures should be taken for the purpose of affording opportunities

14

00(\046

A. Restoration of land traditionally occupied or used should be the principalremedy where indigenous peoples' property rights have been violated.

Because indigenous peoples have a special relationship with their traditionallands, the rule that restitution is the principal means for fulfilling the duty to repair theconsequences ofhuman rights violations requires, where possible, the restoration oftraditionallands to indigenous peoples who have been dispossessed of these lands inviolation of their property rights. The Commission has consistently recognized the"particular connection between communities of indigenous peoples and the lands andresources that they have traditionally occupied and used, the preservation of which isfundamental to the effective realization ofthe human rights of indigenous peoples moregenerallyand therefore warrants special measures of'protection.v'" The Court has alsoemphasized this special relationship, stating that "for indigenous communities, relationsto the land are not merely a matter of possession and production but a material andspiritual element which they must fully enjoy, even to preserve their culturallegacy andtransmit it to future generations. ,,60 Any remedy other than the restoration of traditionalland severs the connection between indigenous peoples and the material foundation oftheir culture.

The inter-American system has been at the forefront intemationally in recognizingthe right to remedies for violations ofindigenous peoples' rights to land and resources. InAwas Tingni, the Court found that Nicaragua's violation ofthe Awas Tingni right toproperty could be remedied only by creating an "effective mechanism for delimitation,demarcation, and titling of the property of indigenous communities, in accordance withtheir customary law, values, customs and mores.'?" The Court required Nicaragua tocarry out the delimitation, demarcation, and titling.62 In Maya Belize, the Commissionrecommended a similar remedy but also required the state to repair environmentaldamage caused by IOrging concessions granted by the state in the Mayans' traditionalcommunal territory.? In requiring states to identify and title indigenous groups'traditional communallands, the Court and Commission have recognized the specialrelationship of such groups to their lands and chosen a remedy that ensures andstrengthens indigenous ties to these lands.

While the Commission has not yet decided a claim seeking restoration oftraditionallands, it has expressed its approval ofthis remedy in its role as a mediator in a

for self-developmentand advancementto groups who, as a result of human rights violations, were deniedsuch opportunities.") [hereinafterVan BoyenReport).S9 Dann, supra, para. 128.60 Awas Tingni, supra, para. 149.61 Id. para. 173.62 Id.63 Maya Belize, supra note 2, para. 190. See also Dann, supra (recommendingthat the U.S. adopt thenecessary legislationto ensure respect for the Dann's right lo property); lnter-Am. Comm. H.R., ResolutionNo. 12/85, Case No. 7615, March 5, 1985 (Brazil),OENSer.UVIlI.66, doc. 10, rey. 1 (recommending thatBrazil demarcateYanomani lands and recognizingthe strong relationshipbetween indigenouspeoples'right to property and their rights to life, physical integrity,health, econornic survival, culture, and religion.)

15

000047recent friendly settlement. In the 1998 Enxet-Lamenxay and Kay/eyphapopyet (Riachito)Indigenous Communities friendly settlement agreement, the Cornmission expressed itsapproval of restoration to an indigenous community of lands held by third parties. Thecomplaint stated that Paraguay had violated the right to property by selling indigenousland in the Chaco to foreigners and by failing to respond to indigenous c1aims for landpresented to the Instituto de Bienestar Rural, a government agency that handlesindigenous land c1aims. The govemment ofParaguay "recognized the existence oftheindigenous cornmunities' right to the land at both the domestic and intemationallevels,"64 purchased the land from the current land owners, and delivered title to theindigenous groups in 1999. The Commission expressed "its appreciation oftheParaguayan State's willingness to settle this case by means ofreparations, inc1uding themeasures needed to rec1aim the land and hand it over to the Lamenxay andKayleyphapopyet (Riachito) indigenous communities and to provide them with therequisite social assistance.v" While the friendly settlement did not require theCommission to make its own recornmendation, its approval ofthe settlementdemonstrates support for restoration ofland as the appropriate remedy.

There is a strong trend in intemationallaw to recognize the principIe that theappropriate remedy for violations of indigenous peoples' property rights is restoration oftheir lands and resources. ILO Convention 169 provides that when exceptionalcircumstances require the relocation of indigenous peoples, "these peoples shall have theright to retum to their traditionallands, as soon as the grounds for re1ocation cease toexist.,,66 A 1997 General Recommendation ofthe CERD Committee strongly asserts aright to restitution in the form ofrestoration, stating that "where [indigenous peoples]have been deprived of their land and territories traditionally owned or otherwise inhabitedor used without their free and informed consent, [states should] take steps to retum theselands and territories.,,67

Emerging intemationallaw provides explicitly for restitution of indigenouspeoples' traditionallands. The Draft UN Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoplesstates that "indigenous Peoples have the right to the restitution oflands and territorieswhich they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have beenconfiscated, occupied, used or damaged without their free and informed consent.r'"Article 18 ofthe Proposed American Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoplesprovides, "[I]ndigenous peoples have the right to the restitution of the lands, territoriesand resources which they have traditional1y owned or otherwise occupied or used, and

64 Inter-Am, Cornm. R.R., Enxet-Lamenxay and Kayleyphapopyet (Riachito) Indigenous Communities v.Paraguay (paraguay), Report No. 90/99, Case 11.713, para. 12.6S Id. para. 22.66 ILO Convention 169, supra, arto 16.67 CERD General Recornmendation, supra, para. 5; see also Study concerning the right to restitution,compensation, and rehabilitation for victims 01gross violations 01human rights and fundamentalfreedoms,Final report submitted by Theo van Boven, Special Rapporteur, para. 17, E/CNA/Sub.2/1993/8!Rereinafter van Boven report].

8 U.N. Draft Declaration, supra, arto 27. See Van Boven Report, supra, para. 17 (citing the U.N. DraftDeclaration's recognition ofthe right to restitution).

16

000048which have been confiscated, occupied, used or damaged.t''" Although the ProposedAmerican Deelaration has not been adopted and does not directIy bind states, theCommission has noted "that the basic principIes reflected in many of the provisions ofthe Declaration, ineluding aspects of Artiele xvm, reflect general intemationallegalprincipies developing out of and applicable inside and outside of the inter-Americansystem.,,70

i. State practice in the Americas demonstrates that restoration ofland isfeasible.

State practice in the Americas demonstrates the feasibility of restoring land toindigenous communities, including restoration of large parcels of lands. Colombia,Ecuador, and Bolivia all have statutes authorizing the restitution of indigenous lands.Colombia's Law 160 of 1994 directs the Land Reform Agency (INCDRA) both topurchase new lands for indigenous use and to buy out non-indigenous occupants ofclaimed lands." Artiele 36 ofEcuador's 1994 Law for Agrarian Development allows forretum of state lands that were in the ancestral possession of indigenous peoples if theindigenous peoples continue to pursue its cultural traditions and respect theenvronment.f Bolivia's 1996 Law ofNational Agrarian Reform Service No. 1715creates procedures for resolving land disputes between indigenous peoples and others andgives preference to indigenous rights over other claims.73 Bolivia has granted indigenouscornmunities title to more than 5.3 million hectares of land in response to these

" , lai 74commumties e aims,

Other American states have shown that restoration of land is practical despite thesometimes significant costo Argentina has funded the retum of at least 4 million acres ofland to indigenous groups." The Chilean govemment created the Land and Water Fundin 1993 to acquire land and water rights for indigenous groups." The fund has a budgetofUS $30,000,000 and has purchased at least 25,000 hectares for retum to indigenouspeoples." In Chile, indigenous groups may also "request a voluntary transfer" ofculturaUy significant lands. 78

The Panar people's recovery oftheir traditional territory in Brazil provides aparticularly compelling example ofrestoration. Outsiders first made contact with the

69 American Draft Declaration, supra, arto 18.70 Awas Tingni, supra, para. 129.71 Roger Plant & Soren Hvalkof, Land Titling and Indigenous Peoples at 35, Inter-American DevelopmentBank, Washington, D.C. 2001.72 Id.73 Anaya and Williams, supra, at 59.74 OAS Rapporteur Report, supra, at 22.75 Indians in Argentina Retain Ancestral Land, N.Y. Times, Mar. 20,1997, A-9.76 Report of the Expert Seminar on Practica! Experience Regarding Indigenous Land Rights and Claims,Whitehorse, Canada, 24-28 March 1996 ElCN.4/Sub.2/AC.4/1996/6; see also 2003 UN land rights reporto77 Jos Aylwin, Indigenous Peoples' Rights in Chile: Progresses and Contradictions in a Context ofEconomic Globalization, (presented at CALACS Conference, March 19-21, 1998), available athttp://www.xs4all.nV-rehue/art/ayI2.htrnl (Iast accessed June 22, 2004).78 Anaya and Williams at 60.

17

00(1049Panar peop1e in 1973 during the construction ofthe Cuiab-Santarm highway, whichcut through their traditional territory. Because the Panar had no immunologicalresistance to western diseases, 176 Panar died from disease between 1973 and 1975 afterhaving contact with outsiders. By 1975, the Panar numbered on1y 79 persons. TheBrazilian government then moved the group to the Xingu Indigenous Park, where theywere forced to live with their traditional rivals in entirely unfamiliar territory." ThePanar began their efforts to retum to their traditionallands in 1991, identifying a part oftheir lands that was still intact, and began retuming in 1995.80 The Brazilian Ministry ofJustice deelared that the Panar had the right to permanent possession of 494,017hectares of their traditionallands in 1996. The President thereafter decreed that this landdemarcating and protecting this land as the Panar Indigenous Reserve.81

Successful elaims for restoration of land in the Americas often involve lands thatare publicly owned. In Bolivia, two nationa1 parks have been titled as indigenous lands -Isiboro-Scure National Park and Kaaiya Protected Area. 82 In the United States, tribeshave negotiated land settlements in national parks and forests and other public lands.Congress recently granted the Timbisha Shoshone 300 acres in Death Valley NationalPark and 7000 acres outside the park. The settlement recognized that "since timeimmemorial ... [the tribe has Iived in] the area that now comprises Death ValleyNational Park.,,83 ther settlements ofnative 1and elaims in the United States inelude atransfer of 11,905 acres ofnationa1 forest land to the Quinault Indian Reservation,84 atransfer of 14,659 acres offederalland to the Hannahville Indian Community and ForestCounty Potawatomi Community," and a transfer of 4765 acres offederalland to thePaiute Indian Tribe ofUtah.86

Canada provides a particularly significant examp1e of restoration of state land.The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, accepted by the indigenous people in Nunavet byvote in 1992 and adopted by the Par1iament of Canada in 1993, provides approximately17,500 Inuit ofthe eastern Arctic with 351,000 square kilometers ofIand, financialcompensation of 1.17 billion Canadian dollars over 14 years, a right 10 share in resourceroyalties, and a greater role in the management ofthe land and the environment.V

79 O Estado de sao Paulo, available at http://www.estadao.com.br/villasboas/panaras.htm (last accessedApril 27, 2004).80 Id.81 Instituto Socioambiental, available athttp://www.socioambiental.org/website/pib/epilpanaralretum2.shtrn (last accessed April27, 2004).82 Fergus MacKay, Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas: The Right to Restitution ofLands andResources, Forest Peoples Prograrnrne paper, Oct. 2002, available athttp://forestpeoples.gn.apc.orgIBriefings?indigenous%20RightslipsJestitutionj>rotected_areas_oct02_eng.htm (last accessed June 22, 2004).83

expediente del trÁmite ante la cidh en el caso n

Documents