Tagaeri and Taromenani Indigenous Peoples v. Ecuador

Submitted by John Knox on Thu, 11/06/2014 - 00:00
Regional Decisions
Inter-American Commission

(Admissibility Decision), Report No. 96/14

On May 4, 2006, the petitioners filed a petition claiming that the State has failed to adopt effective mechanisms to protect the existence of the Tagaeri and Taromenani indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and in their ancestral territory.  They claim that these peoples have suffered acts of violence and killings, including massacres in May 2003 and April 2006 that were allegedly committed by illegal loggers and members of the Waorani indigenous people.  In particular, the application alleged that on April 26, 2006, in the Cononaco Chico sector of the Yasuni National Park, as many as thirty Taromenanis were killed by illegal loggers.  The petition "contended that the incident was related to illegal logging activities and to the absence of effective measures taken by the State to control logging and to prevent attacks on the peoples in isolation and their ancestral territory."  On May 10, 2006, the Commission asked Ecuador to adopt effective measures to protect the lives and physical integrity of the members of the peoples and to adopt the measures necessary to protect the territory they inhabit, including the steps necessary to prevent the entry of third parties."  On Sept. 11, 2013, and May 9, 2014, Ecuador indicated to the Commission its belief that the precautionary measures are not provided for in the American Convention or the Commission Statute and "therefore the State will not recognize any of those measures or issue a response in their regard."

In this decision, the Commission rules that the petition is admissible as regards its claims based on articles 4 (right to life), 8 (right to a fair trial), 19 (rights of the child), 21 (right to property), 24 (right to equal protection), 25 (right to judicial protection), and 26 (progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights) of the American Convention.  It rules that the petition is not admissible regarding the alleged violations of articles 3 (right to recognition) and 23 (right to participate in government).