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
Brazilian judicial abuses questioned on anniversary of military coup
Human rights commission hears case questioning state use of dictatorship-era legal device. Washington, D.C. Marking the 50th anniversary of Brazil’s military coup, Brazilian community representatives and their legal advocates questioned President Dilma Rousseff’s administration at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) over its flagrant use of a legal mechanism that dates to the country’s dictatorship (1964-1985). The speakers argued that the law allows for Brazil’s chief justices to arbitrarily overturn legal decisions that protect the environment and rights of indigenous and traditional peoples who are threatened by powerful economic interests. Known as “Security Suspension” (“Suspensão de Segurança”), this legal artifice permits the federal government to request the suspension of judicial decisions based on supposed threats to national security and the country’s “social and economic order”. The device has notably been used to suspend lawsuits that favor the indigenous right to free, prior and informed consent, allowing for notorious projects such as the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam to proceed in violation of the Brazilian Constitution and international conventions. Decisions based on “Security Suspension” may not be overturned until the final phase of court appeals, effectively blocking due process of the law and paving the way for controversial mega-projects to proceed as fait accompli. Indigenous leader Josias Munduruku, who represents one of the Amazon’s largest remaining tribes, traveled to the hearing to denounce Brazil’s plans to construct a complex of mega-dam projects on the Tapajos river and its tributaries, which threaten to bring devastating impacts on their lands and livelihood. “We are suffering the consequences of the dams that are being built on five of our rivers,” said Josias. “Federal prosecutors filed a lawsuit to stop the Tapajós dams, but the government overruled the court’s decision using Security Suspension, allowing the projects to continue in spite of the fact that we were not consulted.” Federal judge Célia Bernardes mirrored these concerns, speaking on behalf of the Brazilian Association of Judges for Democracy, whose decision on the lack of prior consultations of the Munduruku and other indigenous peoples was overturned by “Security Suspension”, permitting controversial dam projects to proceed in violation of the law. During the hearing, representatives of the Brazilian government argued that Security Suspension has been used only to defend the public interest, including that of indigenous peoples. However, there was no mention of the specific cases raised by the delegates. Judge Célia Bernardes countered the government’s point, stating: “Security Suspension differs from other legal tools as it permits the chief justice of a regional court to override rulings based on exclusively political and economic arguments, without considering judicial opinions.” “Employing broad and subjective criteria, Security Suspension violates the American Convention on Human Rights and destroys any chance for the effective protection of human rights in the Brazilian legal system," said Alexandre Andrade Sampaio, a lawyer with the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “Security Suspension is in flagrant violation of the rights to due process and access to justice, specifically cited in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention." “Security Suspension is a dire remnant of Brazil’s military dictatorship that prevents the judiciary to act independently and impartially," affirmed Edward Baker, a lawyer with Global Justice. "When it comes to mega-projects that are directly linked to state policy for economic growth, the Brazilian judicial system has been used in order to deny, or simply disregard, the rights of the affected populations." The hearing before the IACHR the Organization of American States echoes another official complaint, made on March 10th at the 25th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, denouncing the Brazilian government’s systematic use of this legal instrument to the detriment of communities affected by mega-projects. The hearing was requested by the organizations Justiça Global, Justiça Nos Trilhos, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), International Rivers, Terra de Direitos and the Sociedade Paraense de Defesa dos Direitos Humanos (SDDH). Download the civil society document presented in the hearing (in Portuguese). Watch the video of the hearing (Spanish/Portuguese).
Read more
Organizations alert the United Nations that construction of the Las Cruces hydropower plant will violate human rights in Nayarit, Mexico
UN Special Rapporteurs are asked to urge the Mexican government to guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples and coastal communities that would be affected by the project. Mexico City. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) has sent an urgent appeal to several United Nations Special Rapporteurs showing that construction of the Las Cruces hydropower plant will violate the human rights of communities in western Mexico. The project will affect coastal communities as well as the Cora, Tepehuano, Huichol and Mexicanero indigenous peoples along the San Pedro Mezquital river basin in the state of Nayarit. We sent the appeal to Special Rapporteurs on the issues of adequate housing, indigenous rights, extreme poverty as well as the rights to food, safe drinking water and sanitation and to the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. We filed the appeal on the behalf of economic, environmental and community organizations in areas that would be affected by the project. These include the Inter-Community Council of the San Pedro River, the Náyeri Indigenous Council, the Nayarit Riverside Federation, Nuiwari, the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), the Ecological Mangrove Group, SuMar and representatives of the town of Boca Camichín. In the appeal, we asked the Special Rapporteurs to urge the Mexican government “to guarantee the rights of the indigenous peoples and coastal communities of the San Pedro Mezquital river to information and participation, consultation and consent, as well as to food, clean water and sanitation, and to the right to enjoy a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment.” We also asked the UN experts to visit the site of the proposed hydropower project to find out first hand the damages it will cause on the environment and human rights. The project will affect indigenous lands – mostly those of the Coras – by forcibly evicting inhabitants and damaging sacred sites. This would violate the human rights to adequate housing, water and livelihoods as well as to culture and education. “Our lands and natural resources are the most important aspects of our culture," said Julián López Cánare, coordinator of the Náyeri Indigenous Council and a member of the Intercommunity Council of the San Pedro River. “Every day we fear that our sacred sites will be flooded or damaged.” Ernesto Bolado, director of SuMar, said the appeal to the UN is a demonstration of how the Cora, Huichol, Tepehuana and Mexicanera communities were never consulted on the project as required by Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO). What is more, consent for the expropriation of land and changing its use was requested at community assemblies under false pretenses, the promise of government benefits and even with bullying. Mexico’s state-owned electric utility Comisión Federal de Electricidad plans to build and operate the Las Cruces hydropower dam on the San Pedro Mezquital river at a location 65 km north of the city of Tepic, Nayarit. The plant will have 240 MW of installed capacity generated by three turbines fed by water from a 188-meter high dam holding a reservoir measuring 5,349 hectares. The project will operate only four months a year at regular output, and it will meeting 0.9% of the energy demand of the West Central Mexico in 2026, equivalent to 0.28% of the total installed capacity in the country[1]. “The urgent appeal is a request for United Nations Rapporteurs to investigate the facts concerning the full enjoyment of human rights of the people and communities that will be affected by the hydroelectric project," said AIDA attorney Sandra Moguel. The environmental assessment report for Las Cruces acknowledges that the project will lead to the substitution of agriculture and small-scale livestock ranching for a dependence on fishing in the reservoir. “It is unthinkable to convert subsistence farmers into fishermen or tour operators,” said Marcos Moreno, an oyster farmer in Boca Camichín and a member of the Intercommunity Council of the San Pedro River. You can read the alert sent to the UN Special Rapporteurs (in Spanish). [1] Las Cruces Environmental Impact Assessment, Chapter II, pages 4-12, 18, 19 and 77.
Read moreLegal ways to protect the environment in Colombia
By Héctor Herrera, AIDA legal advisor and coordinator of the Colombian Environmental Justice Network, @RJAColombia Our activities make an impact on biodiversity and the environment every day. The trouble is that our impact is getting increasingly harsher such as with climate change and the extinction of species like the Colombian Grebe (Podicepsandinus, in Spanish). In Colombia, in response to the above situation, the law has been improved to help protect the environment. The Colombian Constitution, for example, recognizes the importance of protecting the environment and the right to a healthy environment in Article 79, while national environmental laws and in other legal instruments offer more help. The following are some of the most important legal proceedings in Colombia designed to achieve and protect the right to a healthy environment. Action of "tutela" This legal remedy was created with the 1991 Constitution to provide immediate protection for fundamental rights such as the right to life. To protect the right to a healthy environment, the Constitutional Court of Colombia ruled in Sentence T-1527 in 2000: “While the right to a healthy environment is not considered a fundamental right in our constitution, it is a collective right that can be protected by popular actions. It can be protected through the exceptional mechanism of the action of tutela when actions or omissions by public authorities or private individuals threaten or violate fundamental rights, such as to life, health, physical integrity, or if it affects the public right to a healthy environment. It is thus a fundamental right by connection."[1] Compared to other legal proceedings, the action of tutela is simpler and swifter in its procedures. Popular Action This action is enshrined in Article 88 of the Colombian Constitution. It provides protections for collective interests and rights associated with public health and the environment. Article 88 was further developed in Law 472 of 1998, whose Article 4 contains a non-exhaustive list of collective rights and interests that can be protected by this legal proceeding. These include the enjoyment of a healthy environment, the existence of ecologic balance and access to public services. The goal of this popular action is to eliminate hazards, threats or violations to collective rights, and restore things to their previous state when possible. This action is preventive, restorative and compensational in nature. An emblematic case involving popular action was taken by the Corporación para el Desarrollo Sostenible del Archipiélago de San Andrés, Providencia y Santa Catalina (CORALINA) before the Dispute Tribunal of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina. CORALINA demanded protection for the right to a healthy environment, the existence of ecological balance, and the rational management and use of natural resources as well as the protection and attention to regional species and ecosystems to permit a sustainable development of the community and the environment. The tribunal ruled in favor of CORALINA in a sentence that can be consulted here (in Spansih). Group Action This action is contained in Article 88 of the Colombian Constitution and should be considered in combination with Article 79, which stipulates the right to a healthy environment. Unlike popular action, which seeks to prevent damage to a public right, group action seeks economic compensation for damages caused to a group of people with homogeneous characteristics with respect to the activity that caused the damage. A symbolic case was the group action taken by peasants and fishermen affected by an oil spill on the Trans-Andean pipeline, which is operated by Colombia’s state oil company Ecopetrol, in 2000 on the Rosario river in Nariño, a southeastern department on border with Ecuador. The oil spill caused serious environmental damage. For a detailed explanation and better understanding of this subject, you can consult the legal sources for the aforementioned proceedings. These include the Political Constitution, Law 472 of 1998, and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court (in Spanish). [1] Sentence T-1527 of 2000 MP Alfredo Beltrán Sierra.
Read more