Report No. 48 (2015) IACHR. Petition No. 79-06 (México)

• Year: 2015
• Petition Number: 79-06
• Report Number: 48
• Respondent State: México
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Pueblo Yaqui

REPORT No. 48/15

PETITION 79-06

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

YAQUI PEOPLE

MEXICO

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.155

Doc. 28

28 J. 2015

Original: Spanish

Approved by the Commission at its session No. 2044 held on J. 28, 2015
155^th Regular Period of Session.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 48/15, Petition 79-06. Y.P.. M.. J. 28, 2015.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 48/15

PETITION 79-06

ADMISSIBILITY REPORT¹

YAQUI PEOPLE

MEXICO

JULY 28, 2015

1. SUMMARY

1. On J. 26, 2006, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Inter-American Commission,” “Commission,” or “IACHR”) received a petition filed by A.S. of the International Indian Treaty Council and the traditional authorities of some of the Y. P. (hereinafter “the petitioners”) on behalf of the Y. tribes Vícam, Pótam, Tórim, Ráhum, Huirivis, Bácum, Cócorit, and Belem, their members and future generations (hereinafter “the Y.P.,” “the P.,” or “the alleged victims”), against the S. of M. (hereinafter “M.,” “the S.,” or “the M. S.”).

2. The petitioners allege that the S. of M. has violated the Y. P.’s right to collective property due to its partial recognition, dispossession, and failure to demarcate, set boundaries, and issue title to their ancestral lands; the lack of effective remedies to procure compliance with the obligation to respect indigenous collective property; the S.’s expropriation of previously recognized traditional territory; the dispossession and lack of access to waters belonging to Y. territory; the alleged granting of concessions and authorization for infrastructure projects without consultation or the required free prior and informed consent of the Y.P.; and the non-existence of a legal framework appropriate to uphold the rights of indigenous peoples. The petitioners also maintain that the S. adopted discriminatory measures against the Y. P. that infringe upon their political rights, and it promoted a policy of agricultural development based on the massive application of chemicals that polluted Y. territory and caused serious harm to the Y.P.’s health. C., the petitioners assert that M. has violated A. 1, 2, 4, 7, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”); A. 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 18 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (hereinafter the “Protocol of San Salvador”); A. I, II, III, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI, XIII, XIV, XVII, XVIII, XX, and XXIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter “the American Declaration”); and A. 6(2), 7(2) and 15(1) of Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization, to the detriment of the alleged victims, as well as various rights recognized in an array of international human rights instruments.

3. The S., on the other hand, alleges that on September 30, 1940, P.C. enacted a resolution specifying the conditions under which the boundaries and demarcation of the lands recognized for the Y.P. would be drawn, while on October 13, 1971, the S. authorities and traditional governors of the eight Y.P. agreed to draw the boundaries and demarcation of the Y. territory under specific conditions. The S. also indicates that on J. 16, 1997 a new survey and demarcation exercise was conducted which led to the issuance of a definitive map, although there is no record that the survey and demarcation were performed. The S. further indicates that the land recognized as being that of the Y.P. has been subject to three expropriations through eminent domain, in accordance with the Constitution of M.. F., the S. alleges that it is addressing the health issues in a comprehensive way, by conducting official studies to assess the health situation of the Y. population and by financing two water purification plant projects for the Pueblos of Pótam and Vícam. The S. believes the demands of the Y.P. are being addressed in the national sphere.

4. Without prejudging the merits of the case and after examining the positions of the parties, in keeping with the requirements set forth in A. 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission finds the petition admissible for the purposes of examining the alleged violation of the rights established in A. 4, 5, 8, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the American Convention, in connection with A. 1(1) and 2 of same, and A. I, II, VII, XI, XVIII, XX, and XXIII of the American Declaration, to the detriment of the alleged victims. The Commission decides to notify the parties of this decision, publish it, and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American S.s.

2. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

5. On J. 26, 2006, the Commission received the petition and assigned it number 79-06. On September 11, 2006, the IACHR requested information from the petitioners about the filing of domestic remedies since 2002, to which the petitioners responded in their communications dated September 25 and December 12, 2006. The petitioners submitted additional information on the petition on N. 3, 2006, September 21,² N. 18, and December 1, 2009, and February 1, May 31, October 29, and N. 23, 2010, and J. 2 and J.6., 2011. D. 2008 and 2009 the petitioners sent communications to the IACHR requesting information about the status of the petition.

6. On J. 29, 2011, the IACHR submitted the relevant parts of the petition to the S. as well as information provided by the petitioners, and asked the S. to submit its observations within two months. T.S. requested a one month extension for submission of its observations, which was granted. T.S. submitted its observations on N. 14, 2011 and supported the petitioners’ request that the IACHR be placed at the disposal of the parties to begin the friendly settlement process.

7. The petitioners submitted additional information on M.7., M. 20, and A. 26, 2012. A. of these communications were duly forwarded to the S. for its observations. On May 30, 2012, the petitioners requested that a hearing be held during the 146^th regular session of the IACHR. On October 24, 2012, the IACHR denied that request because of the numerous hearing requests it had received.

8. On N. 18, 2013, the IACHR sent a note to the petitioners granting them one month to express their interest in starting a friendly settlement procedure. On J. 6, 2014, the IACHR received a communication from the petitioners acknowledging receipt of the communication dated N. 18, 2013. The Commission has received no further communication from the parties regarding this petition since J. 6, 2014.

Precautionary Measures

9. In their filing dated J. 2, 2011, the petitioners asked the IACHR to grant precautionary measures. On February 15, 2011 the IACHR forwarded this request to the S. and requested additional information. The petitioners presented additional information on the alleged situation on September 21, October 4, October 20, N. 16, 2011 and J. 5, 2012. T.S., in turn, submitted observations on A. 8, August 16, and October 13, 2011. These communications were duly notified to the parties for their observations, and additional information was requested as needed. The Commission continues to monitor the situation.

3. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. Position of the petitioners

10. The petitioners indicate that the Y.P. have their own unique language, culture, and system of government, and that their status as an inherent, autonomous, and self-governing indigenous community has been recognized by the M. S.. T. also indicate that the current composition of government consists of eight P.s (Vícam, Pótam, Tórim, Ráhum, Huirivis, Bácum, Cócorit, and Belem), whose traditional authorities jointly handle the affairs of the Y.N..³ According to the petitioners, in 2003 the eight Y.P. had a registered population of 26,231: 13,177 men and 12,954 women.

11. The petitioners state that the ancestral lands of the Y.P. are in southeastern Sonora, M.. According to them, the Spanish Crown recognized more than 5 million hectares as belonging to the Y.s. After that, there were periods of incursions by settlers, persecution policies, killings, massive deportations, and processes to set the boundaries of their territory. The petitioners indicate that Y. territory is intersected by and adjacent to four municipalities (Guaymas, Cajeme, Bacum, and San Ignacio Río Muerto), whose populations are primarily non-Y.. According to the petitioners, counting the land taken away by the S., Y. territory consists of approximately 600,000 hectares.

12. The petitioners state that on October 27, 1937, President Lázaro Cárdenas—without the consent of the traditional authorities of the Y. P.—recognized and returned their land and water, without defining their boundaries. L., on...