Project
Mitchell Gilbert for AIDA.
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.
Two years after the Court issued its ruling, its implementation remains in the early stages, with minimal progress, due primarily to the Peruvian government’s lack of political will and its constant shifting of arguments to delay the process.
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.
Photo: Mitchell Gilbert for AIDA.
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.
In March 2024, the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex resumed operations and is currently once again causing pollution levels in the city that exceed those recommended by the World Health Organization.
Photo: Inter-American Court of Human Rights
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.
Two years after the ruling was issued, there has been no significant progress in its implementation by the Peruvian State. The victims in this case are still awaiting the implementation of the reparations ordered by the Court, including comprehensive and specialized health care, measures to mitigate pollution from the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex, and the payment of compensation.
Partners:
Related projects
The Inter-American Court's Opinion: 7 reasons it matters for climate justice
On July 3, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights released its long-awaited Advisory Opinion No. 32 (OC-32), clarifying the scope of States' obligations in the face of the climate crisis – including, among other responsibilities, the duty to guarantee the right to a healthy climate.This marks the first time that a regional human rights court has made a broad and comprehensive statement on the issue of climate change.The opinion was issued in response to a request submitted by the governments of Chile and Colombia in January 2023. It is also the outcome of an unprecedented participatory process within the Inter-American Human Rights System, in which dozens of States, civil society organizations, Indigenous peoples, activists, and academics engaged through oral statements in public hearings and a record number of written submissions.Below are seven reasons why this landmark decision — written in and for Latin America — represents a turning point for climate justice in the region and beyond. 1. Clarifying States’ legal obligations in the face of the climate emergencyIn its decision, the Court affirms that the world is currently experiencing a climate emergency—a crisis driven by human activities, unequally generated by different States, and one that progressively and severely impacts people, especially those in vulnerable situations.In response, the Court underscores that States have binding legal obligations—not merely voluntary commitments—to confront this emergency with “urgent and effective actions, articulate, with a human rights perspective, and under the prism of resilience.” This means that, amid the climate emergency, States are required to respect and guarantee human rights. 2. Recognizing the human right to a healthy climateFor the first time, the Court explicitly recognizes the autonomous human right to a healthy climate, derived from the broader right to a healthy environment. This recognition establishes that States must protect the ability of both present and future generations to live in a climate system free from dangerous human-caused interference.Protecting this right—which underpins the enjoyment of other human rights—also requires honoring the principle of intergenerational equity. In practice, this means that States must act today to ensure that future generations inherit conditions of environmental stability that allow for equal opportunities for well-being and development. 3. Strengthened protection for people in vituations of VulnerabilityAdvisory Opinion No. 32 establishes that States must ensure that individuals and groups in situations of particular vulnerability — including women, children, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, peasant and fishing communities, older adults, persons with disabilities, LGBTIQ+ individuals, and human rights defenders, among others — are able to exercise their rights on equal terms in the face of climate impacts.The Court also recognizes that certain territories in the Americas — such as the Amazon, the Insular Territories, and Caribbean States — are especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change. 4. Emissions control and regulation of business activitiesAccording to the opinion, States are required to set clear greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation targets and maintain an up-to-date mitigation strategy grounded in human rights. They must also tighten and rigorously regulate both public and private activities that produce GHG emissions.In line with these mitigation strategies, States must determine which projects or activities require an environmental impact assessment that explicitly evaluates potential climate impacts. 5. Protecting human rights within the energy transitionAdvisory Opinion No. 32 underscores that States must safeguard human rights from potential violations linked to the extraction of minerals and other resources necessary for the energy transition.The Court also affirms that States are obligated to ensure the fair distribution of both the burdens of climate action and the impacts of climate change. This includes avoiding disproportionate burdens on certain populations — for example, in how the costs of the energy transition are allocated. 6. Recognition of traditional knowledge in climate actionThe opinion recognizes local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge as protected under Inter-American human rights treaties and as a key part of the best available science. This recognition opens new avenues for demanding the inclusion of such knowledge in climate solutions.The Court thus reaffirms that the right to science also encompasses the intellectual and practical contributions that Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, and other local groups have sustained and safeguarded over generations. 7. Advancing the global movement for climate justiceThis decision reinforces and builds upon earlier rulings, such as the one issued in May 2024 by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which clarified States’ obligations to protect the marine environment from the effects of the climate crisis. It also contributes to ongoing global legal efforts — including the forthcoming Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice, which will further define States’ responsibilities in the face of the global climate emergency.Together, these decisions are strengthening the global movement for climate justice, as well as supporting citizen demand for stronger government action.
Read more
Landmark Inter-American Court Decision Requires States to Protect Human Rights in the Face of the Climate Crisis
In a groundbreaking advisory opinion issued today, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights clarifies the obligations of States to effectively protect people and communities from the harmful impacts of the climate crisis. The decision sets a powerful precedent for climate justice and offers critical guidance to national and international courts worldwide.San José, Costa Rica. In its Advisory Opinion No. 32, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has taken a historic step toward strengthening global climate accountability. The Court sets a powerful precedent by establishing legal standards that States across the continent must meet to protect human rights in the face of the climate crisis. This landmark ruling is expected to drive a new wave of strategic climate litigation, enabling affected people and communities to access justice.“The Court’s decision marks a watershed moment for climate justice in Latin America and around the world, as it is the first time a regional human rights tribunal has clearly spelled out States’ legal obligations in response to the climate crisis,” said Gladys Martínez, Executive Director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “We welcome this significant step forward — one that will not only help protect communities and individuals, but also guide national and international courts, including the International Court of Justice, which is now developing its own opinion on this critical issue.”The Court recognized, for the first time, the existence of an autonomous human right to a healthy climate, derived from the right to a healthy environment. In light of Advisory Opinion No. 32, States across the region now have legal obligations to address the climate crisis as a human rights issue, in accordance with their domestic laws and applicable treaties and agreements, including:Guaranteeing a climate system free from dangerous anthropogenic interference, as a precondition for the exercise of other human rights.Respecting the principle of intergenerational equity, by ensuring that current generations leave behind conditions of environmental stability that allow future generations similar opportunities for development.Regulating, supervising, and overseeing, as well as requiring and approving environmental impact assessments, to fulfill their duty to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.Defining a mitigation goal; developing and maintaining an up-to-date mitigation strategy grounded in human rights; and strictly monitoring and supervising public and private GHG-emitting activities.Ensuring an equitable distribution of the burdens of climate action and climate impacts, avoiding the imposition of disproportionate burdens—this includes the fair allocation of the costs associated with the energy transition. In addition, the Court recognized in its opinion that local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge is protected under Inter-American treaties and constitutes an integral part of the concept of the best available science—opening a new path for the enforceability and inclusion of these knowledge systems in responses to the climate emergency.“This decision by the Inter-American Court ushers in a new era for climate negotiations and litigation by providing individuals, communities, and civil society organizations with a clearer and more robust legal framework,” said Liliana Ávila, Director of the Human Rights and Environment Program at AIDA. “It empowers people to hold States accountable – both in climate negotiations and courtrooms – and to push for the structural changes needed to confront the climate crisis. This includes meeting their obligations on mitigation, adaptation, and addressing loss and damage, all while upholding fundamental human rights.”The Court’s decision responds to a request submitted in January 2023 by the governments of Colombia and Chile. In their petition, the two States emphasized that their populations — along with those of other countries across the Americas — are already experiencing severe impacts from the global climate crisis, including droughts, floods, wildfires, and other extreme events. They called on the Court to clarify how the American Convention on Human Rights should be interpreted in the context of the climate emergency, its root causes, and its wide-ranging consequences.“This decision serves as a binding interpretive tool for States in the region, opening new legal pathways to hold governments accountable for protecting human rights,” said Marcella Ribeiro, Senior Attorney at AIDA. “States must now align their domestic policies to meet the legal standards set by the Court — including, among other things, properly regulating corporate activity in the context of the climate crisis and ensuring a stable climate for future generations.”From the outset of the process, AIDA played a proactive role. The organization supported various communities across the region in ensuring their voices were heard by the Inter-American Court, submitting legal briefs that highlighted the socio-environmental impacts of the climate emergency on Indigenous peoples, women, children, people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, and on particularly fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs. AIDA also facilitated the participation of community representatives in the public hearings held as part of the process, which took place in Barbados and Brazil in April and May 2024, respectively.AIDA additionally submitted its own legal brief to the Court, arguing that the right to a “stable and safe climate” should be recognized as part of the universal right to a healthy environment – underscoring States’ obligations to prevent and mitigate the harmful effects of the climate emergency on their populations.The process saw the submission of more than 200 written observations — an unprecedented number for an Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court — reflecting the region’s strong engagement with the issue. Advisory Opinions play a vital role in shaping human rights law by clarifying how existing rights should be interpreted, thereby guiding States in how to uphold and enforce them within their territories or jurisdictions.Advisory Opinion No. 32 builds upon and reinforces earlier rulings, including the 2024 advisory opinion from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which clarified States’ obligations to protect the marine environment from the climate crisis. It also complements the forthcoming opinion from the International Court of Justice – the UN’s highest judicial body – which will define States’ responsibilities in the face of the global climate emergency.In a global context that demands ever-stronger climate action, the Inter-American Court’s decision reaffirms that governments must act based on binding legal obligations — not merely voluntary commitments. This legal milestone provides people and communities across the region a powerful foundation from which to demand real action and the full protection of their rights in a safe, just, and sustainable climate. Press contact:Víctor Quintanilla, [email protected], +52 5570522107
Read more
Media Advisory: Inter-American Court Decision on Climate and Human Rights Approaching
Expected Release: Early July 2025The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is expected to release a historic Advisory Opinion in early July, clarifying how states must uphold human rights in the context of the climate crisis.This legal milestone follows public hearings where frontline communities, Indigenous leaders, and civil society organizations shared powerful testimony on the real-world impacts of environmental degradation and government inaction. The Court’s decision will have far-reaching implications for climate policy, state accountability, and the protection of environmental defenders across the Americas.From the beginning of the process, AIDA assumed a proactive role, promoting the involvement of communities affected by the climate crisis in Latin America. We supported a diverse array of amicus briefs and community testimonies before the Court in public hearings and presented our own amicus brief arguing that the right to a “stable and safe climate” should be recognized as part of the universal right to a healthy environment.Spokespeople Available for Media Interviews:Legal Experts & Organizational LeadersMarcella RibeiroSenior Attorney, AIDALanguages: Portuguese (native), Spanish, English Expertise: Community participation, just transition, climate reparationsBased in: Brazil Available for: Interviews and background briefingsLiliana ÁvilaProgram Director, AIDA Languages: Spanish (native), EnglishExpertise: Human rights law, climate litigation, regional legal mechanismsBased in: ColombiaAvailable for: Interviews and background briefingsFrontline Community VoicesWe can coordinate interviews with several key members of frontline communities who testified directly before the Court during the public hearings.These spokepeople bring a vital human and territorial perspective to the legal decision and are available for media conversations in Spanish and local language, with interpretation support as needed. Background Materials:AIDA's amicus brief on the right to a safe and stable climate.Civil society contributions from around Latin America, on the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America & the Caribbean.Frontline community interviews from the Manaus public hearing.The Manaus Declaration signed by nearly 400 people and organizations from across the continent.AIDA's background ABC on the Advisory Opinion process. Media Contacts:Victor QuintanillaMedia Coordinator, AIDA 📧 [email protected]📱 +52 55 7052 2107Lorena ZáratePositioning Coordinator, AIDA 📧 [email protected]📱 +52 55 7052 2107
Read more