Skip to main content
Title:
Ngobe Indigenous Communities v Panama
Party:
Panama
Region:
Latin America and the Caribbean
Type of document:
Others
Date of text:
May 08, 2009
Data source:
InforMEA
Court name:
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
Seat of court:
Washington D. C.
Reference number:
Petition 286-08
ECOLEX subject(s):
Land & soil
Abstract:

The State of Panama granted permission for the construction of a hydroelectric dam within the territory of an indigenous community, the Ngobe. When the petition was filed, the construction of the dam had already started and the petitioners alleged that extensive harmful effects on the environment and indigenous community could already be perceived. The effects were among others polluted waters, significant noise pollution and the release of harmful levels of dust into community lands. The petitioners claimed that in the long-term this would lead to the displacement of Ngobe residents from their traditional lands.

The petitioners also claimed that the government police forces which had been patrolling the construction zone had been involved in the violent suppression of the Ngobe’s protest movement. Moreover, the construction of the dam continued despite the lack of a final decision by domestic courts concerning the Ngobe’s attempts to seek remedies.

In light of these claims, the petitioners argued that Panama violated articles 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), 19 (rights of the child), 21 (right to property), 22 (freedom of movement and residence), 23 (right to participate in the government), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Commission held that the petition was admissible with respect to all of the alleged violations.

The State of Panama claimed that the petition was not admissible because the petitioner had not exhausted all domestic remedies as required by Article 46(1) of the Convention. However, Article 46(2) provides that there is an exception to this rule if either domestic law does not ensure a due process, if the alleged victim was denied access to remedies or if there is an unwarranted delay. Responding to this, the Commission found that the State of Panama failed to ensure a due process and a timely decision concerning the domestic claims for remedies so that the exceptions apply.