Human Rights

Leaders of Brazilian movement opposed to controversial Belo Monte dam threatened with imprisonment, for Lawful Protests

International Groups Denounce Attempts to Criminalize Civil Society Leaders before OAS and UN Human Rights Bodies. Altamira (PA), Brazil – Brazilian social movements and civil society organizations are facing politically motivated prosecutions for their lawful opposition to the Belo Monte dam complex in the heart of the Amazon, a leading international human rights and environmental organization said today. In a report issued to the human rights arms of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations (UN), Brazilian and international groups detailed attempts to prosecute human rights and environmental activists and seek the arrests of 11 civil society leaders. Among the accused are a local reporter, leaders of the Xingu Alive Forever Movement, a Catholic priest and nun who led a mass during the Xingu+23 protest, a documentary filmmaker and a fisherman whose house was recently demolished to make way for dam construction. “The complaints filed by the dam consortium and the request for arrest warrants are based on fabricated information and gross distortions of the facts, with the clear intention of criminalizing leaders of a legitimate social movement opposed to the federal government’s obsession with the construction of Belo Monte, regardless of the project’s human and environmental costs and the rule of law”, said Marco Apolo, lawyer and co-director of SDDH, a renowned human rights NGO based in the state of Para. The police request for the arrest still pending approval in a local court, came in response to a complaint filed by of the consortium of companies building the dam.  The peaceful protests organized by Brazilian civil society groups were celebrating 23 years of resistance to the project.  Activities were focused in Santo Antonio, a small riverside village whose inhabitants are being displaced by construction of the large dam.  In an isolated incident, a small group of protestors autonomously entered the offices of the consortium, causing some damages.  Despite the absence of evidence linking the incident to the leaders of the movement and the protests, the police request for arrest warrants charges them with invasion and damage to private property, theft, arson, and disturbing the peace.   “We expect a prompt response from the OAS and the UN regarding this blatant attempt to intimidate and criminalize human rights and environmental defenders working to protect the communities affected by Belo Monte,” stated Joelson Cavalcante, a Brazilian lawyer with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), which co-authored the report.  “The Brazilian government cannot simply silence critiques of its development policy by putting them in jail.” Some of the accused also are plaintiffs in a case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against Brazil for failing to consult local communities and ignoring important safeguards to protect the rights and environment of the people affected by the dam.  In April 2011, the Inter-American Commission requested special measures to protect the rights of 12 indigenous communities.  The Brazilian government has refused to comply with the resolution so far. Brazilian and international groups, including AIDA, have raised multiple claims of human rights violations surrounding the development of the Belo Monte dam.  The project would seriously harm the lands and livelihoods of indigenous and rural communities including un-contacted tribes in voluntary isolation.  The dam is slated to be the world’s third largest and displace as many as 40,000 families. The attempt to silence protest against the project comes in the wake of recommendations from the UN Human Rights Council calling on the Brazilian government to safeguard the work of human rights defenders and protect the human rights of indigenous and African-descendant communities. “Belo Monte is a sad example of misdirected development policy gone awry,” said Astrid Puentes, Co-Director of AIDA. “We expect the Brazilian government to heed the recommendations of the UN and OAS and promote truly just and sustainable development, demonstrating that statements made at the Rio +20 Conference are real.  Stopping the unwarranted criminalization of human right defenders in the Xingu would be a positive step in that direction.”  

Protecting the rich marine life of Cabo Pulmo Reef

Belo Monte Dam controversy to be part of UN’s Review of Brazil’s Human Rights Record

Geneva, Switzerland. On May 25, the United Nations will examine the Brazilian government’s track record for human rights during its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva, Switzerland.  Central to this debate will be the multiple claims of human rights violations surrounding the construction of the Belo Monte Hydroelectric dam, slated for the Xingu River in Brazil. Many Brazilian and international groups have already sent extensive documentation to the UN highlighting the human rights violations suffered by the indigenous and rural communities in the dam’s path.  The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will present information from these and other reports as part of the review or the Brazilian government’s performance on its human rights obligations. Key to the controversy over the dam will be the lack of compliance with an April 2011 resolution from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), an international human rights body of the Organization of American States. The Commission requested that the government halt the project and take steps to protect indigenous communities, including un-contacted tribes in voluntary isolation. Up until now, the Brazilian government has refused to either implement the IACHR’s resolution or dialogue with affected communities in the case. Two civil society reports sent by a coalition of Brazilian and international groups last November highlighted these and other problems with Brazil’s contentious hydroelectric project. The report concludes that the government did not consult with affected communities nor obtain their free, prior, and informed consent, as required by international human rights law.  It also documents violations to the rights to life and health, and the possible forced displacement of nearly 40 thousand families. The two reports form part of a growing body of allegations regarding human rights violations related to the Brazilian government’s plans to push the construction of large dams in the Amazon region. “We hope that as a result of the UPR, the Brazilian government will take a hard look at the damage that its energy and hydropower policies are causing for the rights of indigenous and traditional peoples,” stated Astrid Puentes, Co-director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), which co-authored the reports. “Brazil has a great opportunity to change its development model toward one that is truly sustainable and respects human rights.” According to Andressa Caldas, Director of the Brazilian human rights NGO, Global Justice, Belo Monte is now synonymous with violations of indigenous peoples’ rights and environmental irresponsibility. “The Brazilian government will have to respond to these allegations and is already expanding its delegation for the UPR with experts specifically to defend the Belo Monte dam. But there is no way to justify such an absurd project.” What is the UPR? The Universal Periodic Review is a proceeding in which all UN nations are reviewed every four years by the UN Human Rights Council, which is made up of representatives from different countries. During the process each country is given the opportunity to demonstrate the steps it has taken to improve the human rights situation and meet its obligations under international law.

Brazilian Government questioned yet again by international human rights body over Belo Monte Dam controversy

Brasilia, Brazil - On April 11, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), the human rights arm of the Organization of American States (OAS), asked the Brazilian government to explain reports of poor water quality and forced evictions in indigenous communities affected by the construction of the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Dam in the Xingu River Basin, Brazil. This is the second time that the Inter-American Commission has asked the government to explain the health and human rights impact of construction since requesting precautionary measures in favor of indigenous communities in April of last year. The IACHR also repeated its request that Brazil detail specific measures designed to mitigate the dam’s impact. The commission gave Brazil 20 days to respond regarding the situation in the Xingu River Basin. “We hope the Brazilian government will react quickly to this latest resolution by taking steps to protect the human rights of affected communities,” said Jacob Kopas, legal counsel with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). The IACHR is currently reviewing an international lawsuit filed by the Xingu River Alive Forever Movement (MXVPS), Para Society for the Defense of Human Rights (SDDH), Global Justice, and AIDA. The lawsuit highlights the damages the project is causing to the Paquiçamba and Arara da Volta Grande Indigenous Reservations. “The case before the IACHR aims for Brazil to meet its obligations under international human rights treaties,” explained Roberta Amanajás, lawyer with SDDH. “And in the Belo Monte case, there is abundant evidence these rights are being violated.” This past January, indigenous communities downstream of the construction site registered several cases of diarrhea and skin rashes associated with the sudden deterioration in the water quality of the river, on which they depend for drinking, bathing and cooking. In response, the Brazilian Federal Public Ministry conducted an independent water quality analysis but results have not been published yet. According to Public Ministry officials, constant water control tests are necessary to avoid the risk of contaminating the river’s waters. Another complaint under investigation by the IACHR concerns the forced eviction of impoverished, rural communities, in an area where most small farmers do not have formal deeds to their land. Fearing evictions without any compensation whatsoever, many families have accepted payments worth less than half the market value of their lands. This was the case of farmers from the Santo Antonio village, where only 26 out of 252 rural properties had a formal deed.  In one case, a farmer received only $3,775 USD for a property that would have fetched almost $12,000 USD on the open market a few years ago.

Peru’s efforts to require La Oroya clean up should not be chilled by investment arbitration

San Francisco, CA – The following is a statement from the international organizations Earthjustice, the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law (SPDA), and Public Citizen: In 1997, Doe Run Peru (DRP), an American company, bought from the government of Peru a metallurgical complex located in La Oroya, Peru.  As a condition of the purchase, DRP agreed to comply with a number of environmental requirements aimed at protecting the environment and health of the local population.  For 15 years, Doe Run has failed to fulfill these commitments.  Now, rather than live up to its responsibilities, DRP and its parent company, the Renco Group, are using questionable legal and political tactics to continue to avoid its commitments—most prominently through an international arbitration case against the State of Peru.  In 2011, the Renco Group brought a claim in an international arbitration tribunal for US $800 million against the State of Peru, alleging Peru’s non-compliance with and failure to honor its legal obligations. However, Peru should not be deterred from its efforts to require the company to clean up La Oroya.  Here are just a few of the reasons why: 1.    Even if the Peruvian Congress were to grant DRP another PAMA extension, the liability claims in Renco’s arbitration case against Peru would remain because Doe Run’s case against Peru involves more than the PAMA extension contemplated in the proposed law.  The Peruvian legislature is currently debating a bill to extend Doe Run’s environmental remediation obligations (known by its Spanish acronym, PAMA) for a third time.  The legislature’s Energy and Mining Committee quickly approved the bill.  However, policymakers should not presume that Doe Run will drop its arbitration case against Peru if the legislature grants the extension. Indeed, the company is likely to find it advantageous to keep the investment case going (or launch new ones) in order to pressure the government through the international arbitration proceedings. 2.    The company is using the investment arbitration to insulate itself from penalties in a case in Missouri courts.  In 2007, attorneys filed lawsuits in Missouri (where Doe Run is headquartered) on behalf of children in La Oroya alleged to have experienced serious health problems from exposure to toxic pollution from the smelter in Peru.  In a similar case resolved last year regarding harms to 16 children from Missouri, the Missouri court awarded the children US $358 million.  In the aforementioned 2007 case about La Oroya in Missouri, DRP has insisted that the Peruvian government—not the company—should be held liable for these tort claims (even though the children are only claiming damages that occurred after Doe Run purchased the smelter). Therefore, the company will likely attempt to keep its international investment arbitration case alive until the Missouri case is resolved, so the Renco Group can use the arbitration to force Peruvian taxpayers to pay any penalty awarded against DRP. 3.    The Renco Group is using the arbitration case to move the Missouri case to federal court and evade liability.  Doe Run has aggressively tried to derail the Missouri case by insisting that the La Oroyan children’s claims be heard in US federal courts, where it appears Doe Run believes it is more likely to win the case.  Twice, the Missouri judge refused to allow the company to do so.  After launching the international investment arbitration against Peru, however, Doe Run made a new argument, and convinced the judge to move the La Oroyan children’s case to US federal court, which has jurisdiction over treaty-related claims.  The Renco Group has an incentive to keep the international arbitration pending against Peru—regardless of whether the Peruvian legislature extends the PAMA—in order to maintain its argument that the case belongs in federal court 4.    Giving in to the threat of the international investment arbitration would set a bad precedent for Peru and the world.   As explained above, DRP is using the investment arbitration to serve many different interests.  In each case, the common factor is that the arbitration threatens to make Peru—and Peruvian citizens—responsible for the contamination in La Oroya and any resulting penalties.  If Peru responds to this threat by giving DRP special treatment at the expense of the children of La Oroya, it will send a message to DRP and multinational companies around the world that such threats are effective.  This will weaken Peru’s ability to protect its interests, including the environment and human rights, in the face of corporate misbehavior. 5.    DRP is using false arguments to try to shift the blame to others.   In addition to the arbitration claims, DRP has long argued that Activos Mineros—a state-owned firm—should complete its PAMA obligations to remediate soils around the complex.  Now DRP is claiming unfair treatment because Activos Mineros has not yet been required to do so.  This argument makes no sense.  It is well known that cleaned soils will quickly become re-contaminated if nearby smelter pollution continues.  In Missouri, the authorities calculated that soils near the Doe Run smelter would be re-contaminated only a few years after Doe Run had remediated them at a cost of millions of dollars.  Doe Run is well aware of this, yet argues that Peruvian taxpayers should spend millions of dollars cleaning soils in La Oroya that would be re-contaminated in mere months if the smelter were to reopen without first installing all necessary pollution controls.  This would be a waste of resources and would not solve La Oroya’s health problems.  Activos Mineros should indeed remediate the soils.  But it makes no sense to do so until either DRP completes installing the control technology it has promised yet failed to deliver for 15 years, or after a decision is made to permanently close. The government of Peru should take these facts into account and make sure that it does NOT allow Doe Run to pressure it into reopening the complex in La Oroya.  The government of Peru needs to ensure it is considering and protecting not only the rights of the workers, the economy of the region, and the health and human rights of the citizens in La Oroya that would be harmed by reopening the complex, but also protecting the national economic interests.  Reopening the complex without clarifying the responsibilities for third party claims from cases such as the case pending in Missouri, would be folly and pose a significant economic risk for the nation.  This could even result in economic costs for the people of Peru that exceed the benefits obtained from operating the complex. If the Peruvian legislature believes that it can or should extend the PAMA, it should insist on at least three non-negotiable positions. First, that the Renco Group drop its international arbitration claim.  Second, that Doe Run agree that it will assume any liability in Missouri related to contamination stemming from the smelter in La Oroya.  Third, that DRP complete all of its environmental requirements—before starting any operation—so that Peru can begin its soil remediation efforts and protect the health and human rights of the children of La Oroya. Every day that the fate of the La Oroya metallurgical complex remains undecided without a final solution to the contamination, the citizens of La Oroya suffer grave health risks which in turn increase the harms for which both DRP and the government of Peru could be held liable.

A Human Crisis: Climate Change and Human Rights in Latin America

This report shows that global climate change is already negatively affecting the enjoyment of human rights in the Americas and that present impacts will likely intensify in the future. The purpose of this report is not to provide an exhaustive list of all possible climate change consequences. Rather, we provide a summary of those impacts that are best supported by current evidence, most directly attributable to global climate change, and have the greatest potential to affect the human rights of people and vulnerable communities in Latin America. Read and download the report

Brazil boycotts OAS meeting over Belo Monte Dam

Government refuses to meet affected community leaders at Human Rights Commission. Washington, D.C.—The government of Brazil refused to attend a closed hearing convened by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of American States (OAS) today, taking a stance that threatens to set a chilling precedent for human rights and sustainable development throughout the Americas. The meeting, scheduled for 2pm, was intended to foster dialogue toward resolving conflict and discuss failures in protecting the rights of indigenous peoples threatened by the proposed Belo Monte hydroelectric dam in the Amazon Basin’s Xingu region of Brazil. Plans for the Belo Monte Dam ignore international protections such as the right to free, prior and informed consent, and jeopardize the health, livelihood and ancestral lands of thousands. “The government’s constant refusal to dialogue and its undiplomatic posturing shows its negligence as it sidesteps the law and ignores the rights of local peoples,” said Sheyla Juruna, a leader of the Juruna indigenous people who are affected by the proposed dam. “I am appalled by the way in which we are treated in our own land without even the right to be consulted on this horrific project.” Brazil’s refusal to attend today’s hearing is only its most recent rebuke to the IACHR, a bulwark of human rights protection in the Americas for more than 50 years. The government has not only ignored an IACHR request to halt the project in order to consult with affected communities, but also withheld its dues and recalled its ambassador to the OAS in protest of the IACHR, according to press reports. Brazil’s intransigence is similar to that of Peruvian strongman Alberto Fujimori’s regime, which took a similar stance against the OAS in 1999. “This flies in the face of the image Brazil promotes of a regional leader and host of important international environmental events like Rio +20 next year,” said Attorney Jacob Kopas of the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), a nonprofit environmental and human rights organizations representing affected communities. “With this decision, the government is shooting itself in the foot,” said Andressa Caldas, Director of Global Justice. “Should Brazil be granted a permanent seat on the UN Security Council when it undermines human rights institutions like this?” Organizations supporting communities affected by the dam, including the Xingu River Alive Forever Movement, AIDA, Amazon Watch, Global Justice and the Para Society for Human Rights, call on Brazil to comply with its international commitments and engage in a meaningful dialogue on human rights. 

Mexican Constitution protects human rights

On June 9, 2011, Mexico rewrote history. The Mexican Congress approved revisions that expressly recognize human rights in the national constitution for the first time. The new language requires all authorities to adhere to international human rights treaties Mexico is a signatory to when those treaties are more expansive than the "individual guarantees" currently on the books. As modified, Article 1 of the constitution now recognizes human rights in general and incorporates international law. This means groups such as AIDA and communities in Mexico will have better legal tools for defending the right to a healthy environment or clean drinking water. Or, for example, because indigenous communities’ right to free, prior, and informed consent is granted in international law, Mexico will now have to recognize this right. Moreover, although the Mexican constitution already recognized some rights, enforcement has been difficult. The revision provides additional legal tools and thus raises hopes for enhanced protection of those rights. These constitutional changes came after a four-year process initiated by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Mexico, and involving academics, nongovernmental organization, and independent experts. AIDA contributed by evaluating existing legal tools for protecting human rights as well as international legal obligations. In 2008, the Mexican Congress started considering the human-rights-related constitutional revision, which was finally partially approved in June, 2011. While the Mexican Congress and government should be applauded for its vision, the constitutional change’s effectiveness remains to be seen. Recognizing human rights is only the first step, and the new commitment will mean little without compliance. In coordination with our allies in the country, AIDA will monitor Mexican cases to ensure enforcement of this profound advancement and improved protection of the right to a healthy environment.

Holding Brazil accountable for the Belo Monte Dam

Belo Monte Dam may lead Brazil to OAS High Court

Local communities and NGOs deliver petition exposing human rights violations to Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Brasilia, Brazil—Local communities and NGOs delivered a petition to the Organization of American States’ (OAS) human rights body today claiming that Brazil has steamrolled human rights in its rush to fast-track construction of the controversial Belo Monte Dam, slated for construction on the Xingu River in the Amazon interior. The petition, signed by representatives of indigenous communities and other populations threatened by the dam, denounced the Brazilian government and called on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to declare human rights violations and order the Brazilian government to cancel the project and pay damages. Two weeks ago the Brazilian government defied IACHR’s demand that Brazil halt the dam’s licensing process. Brazil instead granted Belo Monte’s installation license, clearing the way to commence construction despite blatant non-compliance with social and environmental protections. Petition-signers scrutinized illegal aspects of the dam’s licensing process, especially with regard to the rights of indigenous peoples living along the Big Bend of the Xingu River, where 80% of the river's flow would be diverted to an artificial reservoir, undermining livelihoods and potentially leading to the forced displacement of thousands of people in clear violation of Brazil’s Constitution and international law. NGO and legal groups expect the Commission to determine that the Brazilian government has violated the rights of local peoples, and will recommend compensation. If the government continues to ignore the IACHR, the case could go to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, which could formally condemn the Brazilian government for violations of its international obligations. The petition delivery today follows an initial complaint submitted last November that led to the granting of "precautionary measures" by the IACHR in April 2011. These measures recommended to the Brazilian government that urgent action be taken to guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples—as required by the Brazilian Constitution and international agreements such as the American Convention on Human Rights, Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—before proceeding with dam construction. That decision by the IACHR provoked a defensive response from the administration of President Dilma Rousseff, which refused to take additional measures to protect indigenous rights. Eleven civil actions lawsuits against the Belo Monte Dam, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, are still pending in Brazilian courts. “It is clear that the Brazilian judicial system is not working to protect human rights in the case of mega-infrastructure projects such as Belo Monte, given the tremendous economic and political pressures, often linked to corruption,” said Antonia Melo, coordinator of the Xingu Forever Alive Movement (Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre). “As a result, we have no alternative but to request the support of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.” “Our community is under threat and the leaders are the ones who suffer the most,” stated José Carlos Arara, an indigenous chief of the Arara village in the Big Bend region of the Xingu. “I am stuck in my village and no longer leave my community after receiving death threats.” "Brazilian diplomacy is in serious danger of an international embarrassment,” said Roberta Amanajás, a lawyer with the Pará Society for the Defense of Human Rights. “The Rousseff administration's aggressive response to the IACHR, followed by the Brazilian Senate’s vote to censure the OAS last week is a dangerous sign.” "The Brazilian government's position on Belo Monte goes against the image it promotes as a regional leader and its role as the host of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20) in 2012," said Astrid Puentes, Co-Director of the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). "We hope that the governments of the region stop promoting environmentally and socially harmful projects and instead seek truly sustainable development based on respect for human rights.”