By Juliana Bravo Valencia, Amazon Program Director, EarthRights International

After decades of fighting to protect their environment and culture, the U'wa people of north-east Colombia have secured a ruling in their favour from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (the Court). The ruling is  a milestone in the U'wa’s struggle for justice, but also an important precedent: it is the first time the Court has referenced the “triple planetary crisis” of pollution, biodiversity loss and the climate crisis in relation to the state obligation to respect and guarantee the right to a healthy environment, with important implications for the intersection of business, human rights, and Indigenous rights in Latin America.

The U'wa people protect their ancestral lands, both as a physical space and as the foundation of their culture and spirituality. They do this in memory of their ancestors and in fulfilment of the injunction of Sira, their Creator, who instructed them to care for Mother Earth. This work is constantly threatened by various tourism and resource extraction projects, and militarisation in favour of the interests of companies operating in U'wa territory.

In the 1990s, the U'wa began a long journey to have their demands heard and their rights recognised. They campaigned peacefully, petitioning national and international bodies to prove that their cause was both just and necessary in a country where Indigenous Peoples' rights have historically been violated and their lands plundered for the benefit of private interests. The Colombian state has never recognised that the land and cultural rights of the U'wa are compelling priorities that require urgent attention.

The Court found the Colombian state liable, under international law, for violating the land, cultural and environmental rights of an entire Indigenous People, including by authorising oil, gas and mining projects on their land. The court determined Colombia had an obligation to consult Indigenous Peoples about extractive projects that may affect them. It also declared that states must take special measures to mitigate the impacts of the exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons and other minerals in the face of the “triple planetary crisis”, emphasising that the climate crisis is caused by the extraction and use of fossil fuels and by methane emissions. The Court also warned that "the challenge is complex and multifaceted and requires a comprehensive and urgent response to ensure the sustainability of the planet and the well-being of its inhabitants".

This judgment strengthens the Court’s jurisprudence  on the intrinsic relationship between land, cultural and environmental rights, and their indivisible nexus with other fundamental rights, in particular the protection of the right to a healthy environment, as an essential condition for a life of dignity and integrity. The Court recalled that projects or operations affecting the environment pose a risk to the life and integrity of human beings. It also highlighted the  state's duty to regulate activities that may cause significant damage to the environment, especially when they are linked to economic activities.

This ruling reinforces the state's obligations to supervise and oversee business activities that cause environmental damage. This implies the obligation of companies to be accountable, and their duty to comply with environmental regulations, with the Court emphasising that this must occur during all stages of a project or potentially dangerous activity. Furthermore, in one of the votes, the judges added the duty of companies to respect the ceremonies, traditions and sacred sites of the people so as not to turn them into a ‘spectacle’ and thus affect their spiritual value.

The Court also found that in this case the state was responsible for the violation of children's rights. It explained that states have a special obligation to protect children during protests and to ensure that any action taken by the state - such as the use of tear gas to disperse protests - does not affect children's rights.

While the ruling is a landmark victory, the Court did not take the opportunity to conduct an in-depth analysis of the rights to consent and self-determination: two issues that are fundamental to the rights of Indigenous Peoples. An analysis of the basis and legal nature of the right to consent, an understanding of its scope, and the limits of weighing it against other fundamental rights is essential and remains an outstanding debt of the Inter-American System for the promotion and protection of human rights.

This decision is a first step towards the recognition of the rights of the U'wa Nation in this context. The challenge now is to ensure that the decision is effectively enforced. This important precedent is expected to be followed shortly by the Court's Advisory Opinion on Climate Emergency, which could lead to the elaboration of important standards for the region. This is crucial judicial progress to regulate corporate behaviour when the human rights obligations of businesses in the US and Europe are being weakened  under the guise of making business more competitive.