Project
Protecting the health of La Oroya's residents from toxic pollution
For more than 20 years, residents of La Oroya have been seeking justice and reparations after a metallurgical complex caused heavy metal pollution in their community—in violation of their fundamental rights—and the government failed to take adequate measures to protect them.
On March 22, 2024, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued its judgment in the case. It found Peru responsible and ordered it to adopt comprehensive reparation measures. This decision is a historic opportunity to restore the rights of the victims, as well as an important precedent for the protection of the right to a healthy environment in Latin America and for adequate state oversight of corporate activities.
Background
La Oroya is a small city in Peru’s central mountain range, in the department of Junín, about 176 km from Lima. It has a population of around 30,000 inhabitants.
There, in 1922, the U.S. company Cerro de Pasco Cooper Corporation installed the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex to process ore concentrates with high levels of lead, copper, zinc, silver and gold, as well as other contaminants such as sulfur, cadmium and arsenic.
The complex was nationalized in 1974 and operated by the State until 1997, when it was acquired by the US Doe Run Company through its subsidiary Doe Run Peru. In 2009, due to the company's financial crisis, the complex's operations were suspended.
Decades of damage to public health
The Peruvian State - due to the lack of adequate control systems, constant supervision, imposition of sanctions and adoption of immediate actions - has allowed the metallurgical complex to generate very high levels of contamination for decades that have seriously affected the health of residents of La Oroya for generations.
Those living in La Oroya have a higher risk or propensity to develop cancer due to historical exposure to heavy metals. While the health effects of toxic contamination are not immediately noticeable, they may be irreversible or become evident over the long term, affecting the population at various levels. Moreover, the impacts have been differentiated —and even more severe— among children, women and the elderly.
Most of the affected people presented lead levels higher than those recommended by the World Health Organization and, in some cases, higher levels of arsenic and cadmium; in addition to stress, anxiety, skin disorders, gastric problems, chronic headaches and respiratory or cardiac problems, among others.
The search for justice
Over time, several actions were brought at the national and international levels to obtain oversight of the metallurgical complex and its impacts, as well as to obtain redress for the violation of the rights of affected people.
AIDA became involved with La Oroya in 1997 and, since then, we’ve employed various strategies to protect public health, the environment and the rights of its inhabitants.
In 2002, our publication La Oroya Cannot Wait helped to make La Oroya's situation visible internationally and demand remedial measures.
That same year, a group of residents of La Oroya filed an enforcement action against the Ministry of Health and the General Directorate of Environmental Health to protect their rights and those of the rest of the population.
In 2006, they obtained a partially favorable decision from the Constitutional Court that ordered protective measures. However, after more than 14 years, no measures were taken to implement the ruling and the highest court did not take action to enforce it.
Given the lack of effective responses at the national level, AIDA —together with an international coalition of organizations— took the case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and in November 2005 requested measures to protect the right to life, personal integrity and health of the people affected. In 2006, we filed a complaint with the IACHR against the Peruvian State for the violation of the human rights of La Oroya residents.
In 2007, in response to the petition, the IACHR granted protection measures to 65 people from La Oroya and in 2016 extended them to another 15.
Current Situation
To date, the protection measures granted by the IACHR are still in effect. Although the State has issued some decisions to somewhat control the company and the levels of contamination in the area, these have not been effective in protecting the rights of the population or in urgently implementing the necessary actions in La Oroya.
Although the levels of lead and other heavy metals in the blood have decreased since the suspension of operations at the complex, this does not imply that the effects of the contamination have disappeared because the metals remain in other parts of the body and their impacts can appear over the years. The State has not carried out a comprehensive diagnosis and follow-up of the people who were highly exposed to heavy metals at La Oroya. There is also a lack of an epidemiological and blood study on children to show the current state of contamination of the population and its comparison with the studies carried out between 1999 and 2005.
The case before the Inter-American Court
As for the international complaint, in October 2021 —15 years after the process began— the IACHR adopted a decision on the merits of the case and submitted it to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, after establishing the international responsibility of the Peruvian State in the violation of human rights of residents of La Oroya.
The Court heard the case at a public hearing in October 2022. More than a year later, on March 22, 2024, the international court issued its judgment. In its ruling, the first of its kind, it held Peru responsible for violating the rights of the residents of La Oroya and ordered the government to adopt comprehensive reparation measures, including environmental remediation, reduction and mitigation of polluting emissions, air quality monitoring, free and specialized medical care, compensation, and a resettlement plan for the affected people.
Partners:
Related projects
Open Letter to States and Development Financiers
On the anniversaries of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development (December 4th), the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (December 9th), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (December 10th), civil society groups around the world are drawing attention to the unique threats faced by human rights defenders in the context of megaprojects and other development interventions. Human rights defenders are a critical force for the protection of human rights and integral to the achievement of sustainable development. They are vital to protecting the land and the environment, securing just and safe conditions of work, combating corruption, respecting traditional cultures, and holding governments accountable. Yet those who voice their opinions or seek to shape development and investments are routinely stigmatized as “anti-development,” and subjected to judicial harassment, threats, and violent attacks. Since the adoption of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders 20 years ago, an estimated 3,500 human rights defenders have been killed because of their peaceful work defending the rights of others. In 2017 alone, at least 312 human rights defenders were murdered, 67 percent of whom were working in defense of land and territory in the context of large investments, extractive industries and big business. Today, the same governments who adopted these important human rights instruments may actually be undermining those efforts through the actions of their national development banks or bilateral and multilateral development cooperation. Where development interventions ignore human rights, or are imposed upon communities without their consent or participation, they often fail to deliver development or alleviate poverty, and instead end up contributing to rights abuses and putting defenders at risk. That is why the Defenders in Development Campaign is calling on development banks, States, and other development actors to honor these human rights anniversaries by highlighting the important role that defenders play in sustainable development and making a public commitment to: Ensure that development interventions support the realization of human rights and avoid abuses, Promote an enabling environment for public participation within development processes, and Take necessary measures to safeguard defenders in the context of development activities. Read the Open Letter signed by over 200 groups Find more information here
Read more
The first time fracking was discussed before the Inter-American Commission
We heard the news at an exceptional moment. The Latin American Alliance on Fracking had organized a conference; activists, lawyers, NGOs, community organizers, and scientists from seven Latin American countries were meeting face to face in Colombia to work against hydraulic fracturing in the region. It was there we learned that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had accepted our request for a hearing. We erupted in collective joy! Not only would we have a new audience, but also fracking would be discussed for the first time before the Commission. Immediately, we channeled our excitement into hard work. We had just 20 days to prepare a 20-minute case that would summarize every negative impact fracking has had in the Americas. We worked day and night to prepare our case for the October 3 hearing in Boulder, Colorado. It was so little time that Gabriel Cherqui, spokesperson for Mapuche communities affected by the Vaca Muerta mega-project in Neuquén, Argentina, couldn’t obtain a visa in time to travel to the United States. Years of work, converted into minutes Perhaps the most difficult aspect of preparing our case was summarizing thousands of documents and stories into such a short amount of time. It had taken years to systematize our specialized research on fracking in the region and to have our case before the Commission—requested with more than 120 supporting signatures—accepted. Another challenge was to demonstrate the solid connection between fracking and human rights violations, an argument we knew the Commission would be interested in addressing, given the scale and complexity of the problem. So we developed a strategy: Roberto Ochandio, a geographer and former petroleum engineer, presented the technical details necessary to understand how fracking works; AIDA attorney Liliana Ávila explained how the technique has violated the rights to a healthy environment, to life, health, and the informed consent of the affected communities; Alejandra Jiménez from the Mexican Alliance Against Fracking presented case studies from Mexico, where communities’ access to water had been compromised by fracking operations; Santiago Cané, from Argentina’s Environmental and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), exposed the pollution, direct harms, lack of consultation with, and persecution of the communities of Neuquén; and Doris Estela Gutiérrez, president of the Corporation for the Defense of Water, Territory, and Ecosystems (CORDATEC), spoke about the promotion of public consultations in Colombia, as well as the criminalization of and threats to environmental defenders in the country. We emphasized that betting on hydrocarbons and promoting fracking undermines the fight against climate change, since fracking emits methane and other greenhouse gases that accelerate global warming. It was a challenge, to be sure. But we wanted to ensure everyone’s voice was heard. To listen, and learn: a window of hope Based on the response of the Commissioners, it was clear that our case had opened a window of hope. The multifaceted character of fracking—including aspects of development, pollution, climate change and human rights—had captured their interest. Not only was this the first time that fracking had been discussed before of the Commission, it’s worth noting that five speakers had summarized the concerns of more than 120 petitioners, all of whom shared one common cause. What came next was a dialogue in which we responded to the Commissioners’ questions about the technique, their concerns about development in the region, water quality, harms to public health, and concerns about fracking moving nations further away from their climate goals. We requested that the Commission urge States to: adopt measures to avoid human rights violations caused by fracking; generate public, truthful and impartial information based on scientific evidence; and protect human rights protections in cases where the technique is advancing blindly. Going forward, we asked that the Commission follow up on the issue, particularly on the negative impacts fracking has on economic, social and cultural rights; on the lives of women, children and adolescents; and on the lives and territories of indigenous peoples. We requested that the Commission follow up on the attacks against human rights defenders and seek protective measures for those at risk. Of course, questions remain, and at the Alliance we’ve identified many more concerns for the region. But this moment has strengthened us. The hearing set regional precedents and made use of the arguments of Advisory Opinion 23, which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued on human rights and the environment. It is clear that this moment was a small, but vital, step forward, and that there are ears willing to listen. For our part, we will continue doing everything in our power—making use of all available international legal tools—to protect the communities of the Americas that are and could be affected by fracking.
Read more
Behind the Dams: BNDES Investments in Belo Monte and Hidroituango
To change, one must understand. To understand, discuss. And to discuss, we present this report. In it, we analyze the application of existing international standards for hydroelectric plants through the lens of two of the most significant investments in the history of the BNDES: Hidroituango and Belo Monte. The analysis reveals evidence and offers conclusions and recommendations to the Bank, as well as to the organizations and communities involved. They are concrete elements to help improve the future performance of the financial institution. We hope that these contributions strengthen the dialogue with the BNDES, and facilitate the identification of options toward greater compliance with the values the bank has adopted, particularly those of transparency and social and environmental responsibility. Read the executive summary Read the complete report in Spanish Download the Executive Summary in Spanish Read the complete report in Portuguese Read the Executive Summary in Portuguese
Read more