Report No. 9 (2013) IACHR. Petition No. 1621-09 (Surinam)

• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Year: 2013
• Petition Number: 1621-09
• Report Number: 9
• Respondent State: Surinam
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Alleged Victim: Comunidad indígena Kaliña de Maho

11

REPORT No. 9/13

PETITION 1621-09

ADMISSIBILITY

MAHO INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY

SURINAME

March 19, 2013

I. SUMMARY

1. On December 16, 2009, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “Inter-American Commission” or “IACHR”) received a complaint filed by the K.ña indigenous community of M. and the Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname¹ (hereinafter “petitioners”) against the S. of Suriname (hereinafter the “S.” or “Suriname”) alleging violations of articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), 13, 21 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “American Convention” or “Convention”), read in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the K.ña indigenous community of M. and its members (hereinafter “M. Indigenous Community,” “M. Community,” “Community” or “alleged victims”).

2. The petitioners allege that the M. Indigenous Community has traditionally possessed and occupied its lands and territories for thousands of years, maintaining a spiritual, cultural and physical survival relationship with its lands, territories and natural resources, and that the Community has ancestral rights to its lands and territories under K.ña customary law. T. argue that in 1971, the S. nominally reserved approximately 65 hectares of land for the M. Community to use; yet despite the reserve – which they consider to be insufficient- the S. has allegedly granted concessions and permits to third parties to allow them to exploit the land, territory and natural resources that the Community has traditionally occupied and used. T. contend that although the violations they are alleging began around 1991 and continue to this day, the S. has yet to take any measures to protect the alleged victims’ rights. T. claim that as a result, the population of the Community has decreased drastically in recent years. As for the rule requiring exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law, the petitioners argue that there are no domestic remedies available in Suriname to protect the rights of the M. Community.

3. The S., for its part, contends that the petition must be declared inadmissible because the IACHR does not have competence ratione temporis and because the facts alleged do not tend to characterize violations of rights protected by the American Convention. The S. argues that the M. Community voluntarily relocated around 1960 and since then abandoned any traditional possession might have had to the lands and territories beyond the 65 hectares reserved for the Community in 1971. The S. asserts that the petitioners’ relocation in 1960 and the events that followed undermine any claim to traditional possession of anything more than the 65 hectares reserved for the Community.

4. G. the admissibility requirements set forth in articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, and without prejudging the merits of the case, in this report the IACHR concludes that the petition is admissible with respect to the alleged violations of articles 3, 5(1), 13, 21 and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The Commission further decides to notify the parties of this decision, to publish it and to include it in its Annual R. to the OAS General Assembly.

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR

5. The Inter-American Commission received the petition on December 16, 2009, and assigned it number 1621-09. On October 27, 2010, the IACHR forwarded the relevant parts of the petition to the S. and requested that it present its response within two months, in keeping with Article 30(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (“IACHR Rules”).

6. The Commission received communications and additional information from the petitioners on February 3, May 3, J. 15, August 3, and September 21, 2010, and on March 14 and 25 and A. 8, 2011, all of which were duly forwarded to the S.. The IACHR also received correspondence from Suriname on March 9 and December 13, 2010, and February 5 and May 16, 2011. That correspondence was duly forwarded to the petitioners.

7. In addition, on February 4, 2013, the petitioners informed the IACHR that they would be interested in pursuing a friendly settlement process. This communication was forwarded to the S. on February 6, 2013, requesting its observations on it within a period of a month.

Precautionary Measures

8. On the very same day the petitioners filed their petition, they also asked the IACHR to adopt precautionary measures to halt the activities of the M. foundation and of Mr. Baboelal or Baboeram on the lands alleged to have been the M. Community’s traditional lands, particularly the logging and mining activities and exploration for and exploitation of other natural resources. The request for precautionary measures alleged that since 1990, the Stichting M.² and other groups of third parties had encroached on the 65 hectares reserved for the M. Community in 1971. The request seeking precautionary measures also alleged that the encroachers occasionally destroy the community’s crops and threaten the alleged victims’ physical safety. The petitioners claimed that as a result of such actions, the community’s extinction may be imminent.

9. On October 27, 2010, the IACHR granted precautionary measure No. 395-09, for the inhabitants of the M. Indigenous Community. It specifically asked the S. to take the necessary measures to ensure that the M. Community is able to survive on the 65 hectares reserved for it and that any intrusion by persons outside the community be prevented until such time as the Commission decides the merits of the petition.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. Position of the petitioners

1. The petitioners allege that the K.ña Indigenous Community of M. has traditionally possessed and occupied its lands and territories for thousands of years and that its culture and identity have always been closely tied to its lands, territories and natural resources. T. assert that during the mid-20^th century, most members of the M.C. relocated inland, away from the Saramaka River, in part because of encroachments by the S. and/or third parties. H., they also maintained that the Community had always stayed within K.ña ancestral territory.

2. The petitioners report that in 1971, Suriname’s Ministry of Development reserved a 65-hectare area for the M. Community’s use. The reserve was an acknowledgment of a portion of the territory traditionally possessed by the Community. H., the reserve did not involve legal title and did not include all the lands traditionally occupied by the Community. The petitioners point out that the Community still does not have legal title to the 65 hectares that the S. set aside for the Community. The legal status of the land reserved by the S. has never been formally established.

3. The petitioners add that in 1991, the S. government granted the Stichting M. an open-ended permit to farm an area of 171.5 hectares of lands traditionally occupied by the M. Community. That area included a portion of the 65 hectares reserved for the Community in 1971. The petitioners contend that with the knowledge, help and/or acquiescence of the S., members of the M. foundation destroyed part of the M. lands and territories and threatened, intimidated and physically and verbally abused members of the Community on various occasions. For example, the petitioners claim that in mid 1997, members of the M. foundation destroyed a corn field belonging to Cornelis Toenaé, a Community leader. When he complained, he was attacked and threatened by someone wielding a firearm, who had help from a person whom Community members identified as being a police officer. The petitioners report that Mr. Toenaé filed a complaint with the local state authorities, but received no response. T. add that on another occasion, police took Astrid Toenaé, Mr. Cornelis Toenaé’s daughter, into custody and held her for eight days, without bringing any charges against her. T. also claim that on March 25, 2009, Astrid Teonaé was displaced from supposed M. traditional lands with the knowledge of the S. police. The petitioners also report other acts of aggression and arbitrariness that have elicited no reaction or protective measures on the part of the authorities.

4. The petitioners explain that although the...